MADAN MOHAN PRASAD, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the decree in a suit for money as rent of a cinema house in the following circumstances.

2. It is said that the premises in which the said cinema, called Janta Cinema, is located at Bettiah belong to the respondent. He had granted a lease thereof in favour of one Mansukhani in the year 1947 for a period of five years. This lease was assigned to the appellants mother in the year 1949. The term of the lease was to expire on 31st of August 1952. Another lease was taken by the appellant with effect from 1st of Sept. 1952 for a period of 15 years at a stipulated rent of Rs. 350.00 per month. Meanwhile, the father of the appellant took a mortagage of the same property in November 1949. The Respondent alleges that the rent due from the appellant for the period beginning with the lease and ending with Jan. 1957 had been paid off after some remissions granted to the appellant. There were, however, dues regarding the rental with effect from February 1957 to Jan. 1963. He, therefore, filed the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,200.00 and also prayed for eviction of the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent. Further, he claimed pendente lite and future interests.

3. The defence of the appellant is that it was really his father who was the assignee of the first lease, who was also the mortagagee and again who was the lessee under the subsequent lease, the mother and the appellant himself being mere name-lenders. In that view of the matter, it is said that the same person who was the lessee before and the usufructuary mortgagee thereafter was not bound to pay any rent, whatsoever, under the subsequent lease to the respondent. In the alternative, the appellant claimed set-off of various amounts due under one title or the other.

4. The Additional Subordinate Judge decreed the suit partially, inasmuch as he passed a decree for a reduced amount of Rs. 21,825/- which he found due to the plaintiff respondent. He, however, refused a decree for eviction on the ground that the requisite notice under S. 106 of the T. P. Act had not been served. He further denied any pendente lite or future interest. Hence this appeal.

5. A cross-objection also has been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein the findings with regard to the eviction and grant of future rent and pendente lite interest have been challenged.

6. At the hearing of this appeal counsel for the appellant has contended only as follows. Firstly, it has been urged that the leases and mortage being in favour of the same person viz., the defendants father, the defendant was not liable at all to pay anything and his father was not liable too, being the usufructuary mortgagee and thus entitled to the rent which accrued during the relevant period, the mortgage not having been redeemed. Secondly, it was urged that the claim was partly barred by limitation, inasmuch as the suit would be governed by Art. 110 of the Limitation Act, 1908 . Thirdly, that there had been a variation of the contract between the lessor and the lessee, inasmuch as the respondent had agreed to reduce the monthly rental to a sum of Rs. 300.00 and, therefore, the Court below could not have decreed the suit at the rate of Rs. 350.00 per month, as it had done.

7. With regard to the first point, considerable argument has been made to show that the three transactions were really in favour of one person. It is said that the point, though not admitted, was not seriously challenged by the other side in trial court. We have been taken through the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 9 to the effect that the cinema belonged to and was run by the defendant and not his father, as also through the evidence of D. Ws. 1, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 11 to prove the contrary. We have also gone through the documents which are notices from the Commercial Tax Department, the Income-tax Departments assessment orders, Cheque Books and specimen signatures in the bank sent to show as to who