( 1 ) THE only question in this second appeal is whether the suit is barred under Art. 139, Limitation Act. ( The facts found by the Courts below may be briefly stated. In a partition that was effected in 1927, the plaint schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiff. He leased it to the defendants husband, late Baliah, is June 1927 at a monthly rent of Rs. 0-4-0 for a period of three years. After the expiry of the period of 3 years Baliah continued to be in possession and, after his death, the defendant, his widow, continued to be in possession of the land. There is no evidence to show that the defendant paid any rent to the plaintiff, nor is there any evidence to establish that the landlord otherwise assented to the continuance of the defendant as a tenant. The suit was filed by the lanlord for evicting the defendant on 24. 8. 1948, i. e. , clearly beyond twelve years from the date of expiry of the leasedeed. Both the Courts held that the suit was barred by limitation under Art. 139. Limitation Act. Hence the second appeal. Article 139, Limitation Act reads :"by a landlord to recover possession from a tenant -- Twelve years -- When the tenancy is determined