( 1 ) THE only question which arises in this second appeal against judgment and decree dated September 13, 1972 of Shri H. K. S. Malik, Senior Sub Judge, is as to what is the period of limitation prescribed for recovery of arrears of house-tax due to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ?

( 2 ) VIDE letter dated February 14, 1968, the Assistant Assessor and Collector (Recovery Cell) of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, had required the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 19,558/75p. as arrears of house-tax due an respect of property No. 3432-35/111, Ganda Nala, Mori Gate, Delhi, calculated up to the period ending March 31, 1967. It was mentioned in the said notice that in case the arrears of house-tax are not paid upto February 22, 1968, the same shall be recovered by execution of distress warrant along with,20% penalty. This demand was challenged by the appellant by filing a civil suit on February 21, 1968, seeking perpetual injunction against the respondent-corporation. The appellant challenged the said demand on the ground that this particular property was an evacuee property earlier and had vested in the Custodian and the appellant became owner of the said property with effect from September 29, 1966, when a sale-deed was executed and registered in his favour by the government and thus he was not liable for payment of house-tax for the period prior to his becoming owner of the property and secondly, that in any case the demand raised by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was barred by limitation and thus the appellant was. not liable to pay arrears of house-tax beyond the period of three years.

( 3 ) MUNICIPAL Corporation of Delhi contested the suit besides taking. certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit on account of provisions of Sections 477 and 478 of the Act. The plea was taken that the demand raised by the Corporation was legal and the arrears of house-tax claimed in the said demand were not barred by limitation and the recovery could be effected from the appellant who is the owner of the property and the house-tax is the first charge on the property in question. In the replication the appellant reiterated his pleas and following issues were framed : (1) Whether the impugned demand notice dated February 14, 1968, of the defendant is illegal and unenforceable against the plaintiff? (2) Relief.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff-appellant appeared in the witness box and made his. statement proving the notice of demand Ex. PI on the record and deposed that he had deposited the house-tax due from him for the period 1966-67 and 1967-68 and he was not liable to pay the arrears of house-tax mentioned in the demand notice. He admitted in the cross-examination that he was in provisional possession of the property in question much earlier to the issuance of the sale certificate in his favour by the government. In rebuttal a clerk from the house-tax department appeared as DWI and he proved on record Exs. Dl and D2, copies of the extracts from the demand and collection register which show the period from which the house-tax arrears have been calculated. DW2, a clerk from the office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner, appeared in the witness box and deposed that provisional possession had been given to the plaintiff-appellant with effect from November 25, 1957. Vide judgment dated February 26, 1970, Shri Mohinder Singh, Sub-Judge, gave a finding that the demand raised by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, is covered by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. As the demand was barred by limitation, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi cannot recover house-tax for a period prior to February 21, 1965. So, he granted injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation of Delhi from recovering the arrears of house-tax of the period prior to February 21, 1965. The matter was taken up in appeal by the Corporation and Shri H. K. S. Malik, Senior Sub- Judge, vide impugned judgment held that no period of limitation is f