The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain a Money Suit for recovery of arrears of rent, and the suit was not barred by law of limitation.

Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

1. The Defendants have challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated, 9th April, 2007 passed by Sri Murlidhar, 6th Subordinate Judge, Bhojpur, Ara in Money Suit No. 15 of 2000 decreeing the Plaintiffs suit.

2. The Plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of arrear amount from the Appellants alleging that the Plaintiffs double-storied building has 20 rooms, go down and other necessary facilities, the details of which has been described in Schedule- A of the plaint. The Plaintiffs father had given on rent to the Appellants. Father of the Plaintiff died in 1985 and since then, the Plaintiff is "karta" and in the capacity of "karta", he was realizing Rs. 95 as rent per month from the Appellants. Later on, the Plaintiff filed an application before the Defendant No. 4 on 4th September, 1985 for increasing the rent to Rs. 5000 per month. The Defendant No. 4 referred the said application to the Defendant No. 3. The Defendant No. 3 in term by Letter No. 2634 dated, 11th December, 1986 wrote to S.D.O-cum-House Controller, Ara for fixation of fair rent. The House Controller after observing all formalities required under the law fixed the fair rent with effect from 11th December, 1986 and informed the Defendant No. 2. Appeal was filed being Appeal No. 4 of 1987 before the Collector, Ara which was dismissed on 8th October, 1997. Against the said order, the Appellants filed Revision No. 24 of 1998-99 before the Commissioner, Patna Division. After hearing both the parties on 17th March, 1999, the Revision was rejected and the Appellants were directed to pay the arrear of fair rent immediately to the Plaintiff. In this way, the Defendants-Appellants are liable to pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 3,000 fixed by the House Controller from 11th December, 1986 to 31st August, 2000. The Plaintiff served Advocate notice on the Defendants and the Defendants assured the Plaintiff to pay the arrears of rent but they never paid. On 12th August, 2000, a letter was sent to the Plaintiffs Advocate informing that the Defendants have vacated the house premises on 31st August, 2000 but still today, they have not vacated the suit premises. Therefore, the Plaintiff claimed Rs. 4,94,000 as arrears of fair rent and filed the suit.

3. On being noticed, the Defendants-Appellants appeared and filed a contesting written statement alleging that the Plaintiff never repaired the suit premises. The application for fixation of fair rent was not filed by the Plaintiff and the House Controller wrongly increased the rent Rs. 95 to Rs. 3,000 against the provision of Section 8 of the Eihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. According to Section 8, at a time the rent cannot be increased for more than 25 per cent. The Plaintiffs claim is time barred and, therefore, he is not entitled to receive the arrears of rent. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the learned Court below framed the following issues:

(I) Is the suit maintainable?

(II) Is the Plaintiff is entitled to file the suit?

(III) Is the suit is time barred, waiver, estoppel and acquiescence?

(IV) Is the Plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 4,94,000 as arrears of rent from the Defendants at the rate of 11 per cent per annum.

(V) Is the Plaintiff is entitled to any other reliefs?

4. After trial, the learned Court below found that the Defendants-Appellants are liable to pay the arrears of rent from 11th December, 1986 and because the Defendants- Appellants are intentionally not paying the said amount, the Plaintiff is in great loss, so, the Plaintiff is also entitled for interest. The learned Court below also found that the suit is not barred by law of limitation and decreed the Plaintiffs suit.

5. The learned Counsel, Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh appearing on behalf of the Defendants- Appellants submitted that the impugned Judgment and decree are unsustainable in the eye of law because the Appellants have been directed to pay the arrears of r