The running of limitation after the efflux of time under Article 67 of the Limitation Act would not stop due to the protection granted to tenants against ejectment under the Rent Control Law.

C. M. LODHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the plaintiff from the appellate judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Ajmer dated 20-3-1970 by which the plaintiffs suit for ejectment from the house in dispute and for recovery of damages was dismissed.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the plaintiffs case as set out in the plaint is that he leased out the house in question, situated near Tripoliya Gate, Ajmer to the defendant No. 1 kundomal by a registered lease deed dated 15-12-1950 on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-, though the possession of the house was handed over to the plaintiff on 1-41951. The tenancy is said to be a monthly one. It was stated that the defendant no. 1 had not paid rent to the plaintiff for more than six months and had unauthorisedly and wrongfully removed the tin-shed from the house and had also admitted the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 as sub-tenants without the consent of the plaintiff. It was also alleged that the efendant No. 1 had made certain material alterations in the house without the permission of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs case is that he terminated the defendants tenancy by a notice of ejectment dated 317-1967, but since the defendant had not vacated the house the plaintiff filed the present suit on 21-9-67 in the Court of Mun-siff, Ajmer City (West), Ajmer for ejectment as well as for Rs. 550/- on account of rent, and damages.

( 3 ) THE defendant No. 1 denied that he was the plaintiffs tenant and pleaded that he had full authority to make any changes in the property and also to let out the same to whomsoever he liked. He also pleaded that he was the owner of the property and was in adverse possession of the same for more than 12 years.

( 4 ) THE defendant No. 2 pleaded want of knowledge regarding the allegations contained in the plaint and pleaded that the cabin standing on a part of the property in question had been constructed by him at his own cost.

( 5 ) AFTER recording the evidence produced by the parties the learned Mun-siff by his judgment dated 22-4-1969 decreed the plaintiffs suit for ejectment as well as for arrears of rent/mesne profits at Rs. 550/ -. He further directed that the plaintiff will be entitled to recover Rs. 15/-per month as mesne profits from the defendant No. 1 from the date of the suit till he vacates the premises in question.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree by the trial Court the defendant filed appeal, which was allowed by the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer by his judgment dated 20-3-1970. The learned Civil Judge reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiffs suit as barred by limitation. Consequently, the plaintiff has come in second appeal to this Court.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has urged that the bar of limitation had not been raised by the defendant either in the written statement or at any stage of the proceedings in the trial Court. It is contended that the plea of limitation in the present case as dealt with by the learned Civil Judge is a mixed question of fact and law and the learned Civil Judge should not have allowed it to be raised for the first time in appeal and in case he thought it fit to do so he should have framed an issue on this point and given oppor-tunity to both the parties to lead evidence on it. In the alternative it is contended that on the record as it stands the plea is not sustainable.

( 8 ) BEFORE I deal with the arguments advanced before me, I may refer to the main findings arrived at by the learned Civil Judge. In the first place he has held that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who are father and son are admittedly the tenants of defendant No. 1, and, therefore, if it is proved that the defendant No. 1 is a tenant of the plaintiff, the allegation that the defendant No. 1 had sub-let the premises in question to the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 automatically stands proved. He has also found that there is no force in the defendants plea of adverse possession and it had been rightly o