The liability of the assignee to pay rent is based on the privity of estate, and the covenant to pay rent is considered a covenant running with the land, leading to the application of Article 116 of the Limitation Act.

( 1 ) THE main question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs' claim for arrears of rent for the period Ashar 1342 B. S. to As win 1345 B. S. or any portion thereof is barred by limitation. The original lease for the property in suit which consists of land with a pucca structure thereon was taken by one Daud Musaji Asmal from the present plaintiffs at a rental of Rs. 180 per year, payable in four equal quarterly kists. Daud Musaji having been declared an insolvent on 24-4-1933, his interest vested in the Official Assignee. This interest was thereafter on 13-3-1937 assigned by a registered deed in favour of the present defendant. The suit was instituted on 14-7-1941.

( 2 ) THE two main contentions of the defendant were that the suit was barred by limitation and that in any case, he was not liable for rent beyond the date of his purchase which was on 13-3-1937.

( 3 ) ON the question of limitation, the defendant's case was that Art. 110, Limitation Act, was applicable so that the claim for the entire amount except the last kist would be barred.

( 4 ) THE contention on behalf of the plaintiffs was that Article 116 was applicable, inasmuch as the liability to pay rent was the result of a contract contained in a registered deed.

( 5 ) THE trial Court held that Article 116, Limitation Act was applicable and decreed the suit in full holding, also that the defendant was liable even for the rents of the period prior to his purchase.

( 6 ) ON appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge of 34 Parganas agreed with the trial Court that Article 116 and not 110 applied to this case but held that the defendant was not bound to pay the rents due prior to his purchase. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal in part and decreed the suit for arrears of rent for the period after the date of purchase.

( 7 ) IT is now contended by Mr. Chandra Sekhar Sen on behalf of the defendant-appellant that Article 116 cannot apply to this case inasmuch as there was no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant assignee and that Article 110 should apply. He has further put forward as an alternative view that Article 62, Limitation Act which also prescribes a period of three years' limitation may be applicable. Article 62 prescribes a period of limitation for suits "for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use. " In my opinion, it will require a considerable stretch of imagination--for which I find no justification--to say that where the assignee of a lease is being sued for rent, the money due is in the nature of money received by this defendant assignee for the use of the plaintiffs landlords. If at the date of the assignment some rent was already in arrears, it might perhaps be argued that the assignee when he received the leasehold property might be held to have received such arrears from the original lessee for the purpose of payment to the landlord lessor. The claim for such arrears which fell due prior to the date of assignment might then be considered to be thus "money received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use. " The decision in the case of Panku Menon v. Thazeth Meladam, 41 Mad. 488 ; (A. I. R. (5) 1918 Mad. 288), on which Mr. Sen relied, contemplated a case of this nature and it was with respect to such arrears which were due at the date of the assignment that the Court held that Article 62, Limitation Act would be applicable. For reasons mentioned later in this judgment, I do not consider that the plaintiffs can lawfully claim from the assignee, the rents which were due prior to the date of assignment, so that we are hardly concerned with the question of limitation as regards that portion of the plaintiffs' claim. If however the plaintiffs would have been entitled to obtain these arrears prior to the date of the purchase. I might have agreed with the learned Advocate that their claim as regards those arrears would be