The period of limitation for recovery of advance rent deposited with the landlord begins to run from the date of demand or the exercise of option by the tenant or from the date of termination of tenancy.

( 1 ) THE Plaintiff, whose suit was dismissed by the learned Principal district Munsif, Kurnool, filed this revision petition. He filed the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 354-52 which represents a sum of Rs. 314-52 being the advance rent for six months deposited with the defendants on 16th June, 1952 and a sum of Rs. 50 being the rent collected from the plaintiff s brother on 18th July, 1960. The Plaintiff s case is that he is the tenant in one of the shops belonging to the defendants in Peta, Kurnool Town and is running a shorthand and typewriting institute in the said premises for about 14 years prior to the date of suit. He took the said premises on rent on 16th June, 1952 agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 56-42 including electrical charges. As required by the defendants, the plaintiff deposited the sum of Rs. 314-52 representing the advance rent for six months v/ith the defendants. But no receipt was passed therefor. The defendants also collected a sum of Rs. 50 from the plaintiff s brother in two instalments towards the plaintiff s rent account, but the defendants did not account for the same. The suit has been laid for the recovery of the aforesaid amounts.

( 2 ) THE first defendant filed a written statement stating that he had nothing to do with the premises let out to the plaintiff as in the partition that took place in the year 1962, the house fell to the share of the 2nd defendant and therefore the second defendant alone should be sued for the amount. The first defendant denied that the plaintiff paid the sum of Rs. 314-52 being the six months rent as advance to the defendants. He also denied the collection of Rs. 50 from the plaintiff s brother. He further stated that the amounts were not held by the defendants as trustees and that the suit was barred by limitation. The second defendant filed a separate written statement stating that he got the suit portion of the house in the partition but he denied the deposit of six months rent as well as the collection of Rs. 50 from the plaintiff s brother. The trial Court framed the following points:- (1) Whether the deposit of Rs. 314-52 with the defendants being the, six months rent is true? (2) Whether the defendants collected a sum of Rs. 50 from the plaintiff s brother towards plaintiff s rent account as contended by the plaintiff ? (3) Whether the suit is barred by time?

( 3 ) IN support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself while the defendants examined their clerk. On a consideration of the entire evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion on point No. 1. that the deposit of Rs. 314-52 was true. On point No. 2 it was held that the plaintiff did not establish that the defendants had collected Rs. 50 from the plaintiffs brother. On point No. 3, the trial Court held that the deposit of advance rent in excess of two months rent became illegal by reason of the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XXV of 1949 and that the deposit of the advance rents for four months became barred bv 1958. In respect of the two months deposit, the trial Court took the view that the deposit in excess of one month s rent became illegal by reason of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control Act of 1960 and that the period of limitation for recovery of that one month s rent became barred bv April, 1966 and that in respect of the remaining one month s rent, the trial Court took the view that the suit was premature as the one month s deposit of rent continues to be a legal deposit until the termination of the tenancy. In this view, the lower Court dismissed the suit.

( 4 ) IN this revision filed by the plaintiff, Sri C. V. Kanvakaprasad. the learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the view taken by the lower Court on the question of limitation. But the findings on points 1 and 2 are findings of fact and have not been rightly challenged by either of the parties before me. The only quastion that arises for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document