A.Lekshmikutty, J.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S. No.82 of 1990 on the file of Sub Court, Cherthala, this appeal is filed by the first defendant. The first respondent as plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The case of the plaintiff is that shop room bearing Door No.397 in Ward No.23 of Cherthala Municipality belonging to the plaintiff was rented out to the late Padmanabhan Achari on 7.10.1980 for a monthly rent of Rs.350/-. The 7th respondent is the widow and appellant and respondents 2 to 6 are the children of the late Padmanabhan Achari. The defendants were in possession of the shop room as the legal representatives of the late Padmanabhan Achari. On 5.11.1980 late Padmanabhan Achari filed a petition before the Rent Control Court as R.C. A. No.24/1980 for fixation of fair rent. The Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs .218.50 per month. Against the said order, both the plaintiff and late Padmanabhan Achari preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority enhanced the fairrent to Rs.346.50 per month and dismissed the appeal filed by late Padmanabhan Achari. It was provided in the order that the fair rent fixed will come into force from the date of application, ie. on 5.11.1980. As the plaintiff required the shop room for his own bonafide occupation, he filed a petition as R.C.P. 12/1984 before the Rent Control Court for eviction and the same was allowed on 20.1.1987. At the time of filing the suit, the appeal preferred against the order of eviction was pending before the District Court. Alappuzha as R.C. A. No.48 of 1989. Subsequently, the eviction has taken place. The plaintiff filed the present suit for realisation of a sum of Rs.54,798.50 together with interest at 12% on the principal sum of Rs.35,9947- and cost of the suit.

2. The first-defendant filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable and the plaint claim is barred by limitation. The valuation shown in the plaint is not correct and the interest claimed is excessive.

3. On the basis of the pleadings, the court below framed 4 issue. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. On the side of the plaintiff, the common judgment in R.C.A. Nos.7/1985, 8/1985, 9/1985 and 10/1985 was marked as Ext.Al. The Court below after appreciation of the evidence passed a decree allowing the plaintiff to realise a sum of Rs.54,798.50 from the defendants together with interest on the principal amount of Rs.36,036/- at 6% from the date of suit till the date of recovery. The above said judgment and decree are challenged in this appeal.

4. The question for consideration is whether the suit claim is barred by limitation. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent together with interest from 7.11.1981 onwards. The said suit was filed on 6.8.1990. The contention of the defendant is that the suit is barred by limitation. One Padmanabhan Achari, the father of the appellant took the shop building belonging to the first respondent on 7.10.1980 on a monthly rent of Rs.350/-. The father of the appellant late Padmanabhan Achari filed R.C.A. No.24 of 1980 before the Rent Control Court for fixation of fair rent and the Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs.218.50 per month. Against the said order, both the parties preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant and allowed the appeal filed by the landlord fixing fair rent at the rate of Rs.346.50 per month. The said appeal was disposed of on 31.1.1989. The contractual rent was paid by the tenant only up to 7.11.1981. As per Art.52 of the Indian Limitation Act, for recovery of arrears of rent, the period of limitation is 3 years from the date when the arrears become due. As per the respondents herein; the rent was in arrears from 7.11.1981 onwards. But the suit was filed only on 6.8.1990. At any rate, the plaintiff is not entitled