LAKHA KHAN Vs. SHRI KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the landlord-defendant against an order of the appellate court fixing the standard rent of a shop owned by him at Rs. 22. 8. 0 per month on the suit of the tenant-plaintiff under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. The revision application has been contested on behalf of the tenant.

(2.) THE facts found by the appellate court, which cannot be challenged in this revision application, are these. THE tenant took the shop on an agreed rent of Rs. 50/- on 21. 4. 53. He instituted the present suit for fixation of standard rent on 4. 4. 62 on the ground that the agreed rent is excessive as it is more than 2 times the basic rent. It was alleged that the basic rent of the shop, that is the rent in 1943, was Rs. 9/- per month. THE contention on behalf of the landlord is that the suit is barred under Art. 120 of the Limitation Act and the cause of action accrued to the tenant at the very commencement of the tenancy namely 21. 4. 53 when he took the shop on an agreed rent of Rs. 50/- per month. As the agreed rent was excessive being more than 2 1/2 times the basic rent, the tenant could have avoided the agreement by bringing a suit under sec. 6 soon after taking the shop on rent. Reliance was placed on the decision of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Bai Manchha vs. Md. Baker-el Edrus (l ). THE plaintiffs of that case who were the cultivators of suit lands and in possession of the same at all material times alleged that in 1923 the defendant demanded from the cultivators double the rate of rent under threat and coercion and gave them a Hobson's choice of either signing a Kabuliat agreeing to pay the enhanced rate of rent or to vacate the lands and that the plaintiffs executed the Kabuliat and had been paying the enhanced rent year after year. THE suit was brought for a declaration that they were the tenants on a fixed rate of rent. THE cause of action for the suit was alleged to arise when the defendant wrongly demanded the enhanced rate in 1923 and it continued to subsist day after day till 1951 when the defendant filed an application to the Mamlatdar for recovering the enhanced assessment for the current year. It was held that sec. 23 of the Limitation Act had no application and the suit was barred under Art. 120 of the Limitation Act. THE injury caused to the plaintiff was complete the moment the act of execution of the Kabuliat under a threat of compulsion was done and the demands for enhanced rate made year after year in pursuance of that act was merely the effect of that wrong and did not make it a continuing wrong. THE right to sue accrued within the meaning of Art. 120 Limitation Act when the plaintiffs' right was effectively invaded for the first time in 1923 and the filing of applications to the Mamiatdar in 1951 did not constitute a fresh and independent invasion of the right of the plaintiffs as occupants or permanent tenants so as to give them a fresh right to sue.