DHANI RAM AND ORS. Vs. GHASITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition. by Dhani Ram and five others challenging a decree passed against them in favour of the Respondent Ghasita Ram, for Rs. 95 by the Hoshiarpur Small Cause Court.

(2.) THE Petitioners are the landlords and the Respondent the tenant of certain premises. In an ejectment petition which was dismissed the rent of the premises in suit was held to be Rs. 13 -12 -0 per mensem. On the 3rd of February, 1959, the landlords filed a second ejectment application based on non -payment of rent and the rent was claimed at the rate of Rs. 16 -12 -0 per mensem. On the first date of hearing the Defendant in order to avoid ejectment made a deposit in Court of Rs. 402 including arrears of rent at Rs. 16 -12 -0 per mensem although his case was that the true rent was only 13 -12 -0 as determined in the previous ejectment proceedings. The tenant instituted his suit for the recovery of Rs. 95. the amount of excess rent, on the 17th of February, 1960 and obtained a decree which is now challenged. The only question in the revision petition is whether the Plaintiff's suit was within time, this point being decided in his favour by the learned Small Cause Court Judge on the basis of the decision of Vaidialingam J. in Damodar Hegadai v. Vittappan, A.I.R. 1961 Ker 54. The learned Judge held that there may be a statutory right given to a tenant to claim an adjustment or refund of the amount of rent paid in excess of fair rent by the Lease and Rent Control Order, but if the relief for that refund is sought through the medium of a Court, the provisions of the Limitation Act apply and such a suit is governed by the general Article 120 and not by Article 62 of the Limitation Act. The period of limitation was thus held to be six years.

(3.) SINCE the Punjab Act is of the year 1949, the question of the commencement of the Act does not arise in this case, and a bare perusal of Section 8(1) appears to indicate that a tenant can recover excess rent paid to a landlord only within six months. of making the payment, whether he recovers it by deduction from rent payable thereafter or by any other means, and my attention has been drawn to the decision of Shah C.J. and Baxi J. in Mahipatram Dolatram v. Bal Anjwli Sabur, A.I.R. 1056 Saur. 87 in which Section 20 of the corresponding Act, has been interpreted. The words are similar in purport to those of Section 8(1) of the Punjab Act. Section 20 reads