Landlords must file suit for rent arrears within three years, as mere tenant non-payment does not extend limitation periods for recovery.

JUDGMENT :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

1. The present Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the Court of the learned Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge at Namakkal in A.S.No.19 of 2019, dated 09.03.2020, in confirming the judgment and decree of the Court of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge at Namakkal in O.S.No.280 of 2016, dated 18.12.2018.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their rank in the suit.

3. O.S.No.280 of 2016 is a suit for recovery of money of a sum of Rs.7,07,067/- to be paid as arrears of rents by the defendants jointly and severally.

4. The plaintiff is the owner of the property situated at 1^st Floor, K.V.A.Complex, 90A, Thuraiyur Road, Namakkal - 637 001. The defendants entered into possession pursuant to a lease agreement dated 01.03.2005. As there was default in the payment of rent right from the time of entering into the premise, after exchange of notices, a Rent Control Original Petition was filed for eviction in R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2008 on the file of the Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif at Namakkal. The said Rent Control Original Petition came to be dismissed on 04.07.2012.

5. Aggrieved by the same, a Rent Control Appeal was preferred to the file of the learned Subordinate Judge - cum - Rent Control Appellate Authority at Namakkal in R.C.A.No.6 of 2012. The Appellate Authority reversed the judgment of the Rent Controller, and ordered eviction on 27.02.2013.

6. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, a Civil Revision Petition was presented before this Court in C.R.P.(NPD)No.2846 of 2013. The said revision came to be dismissed on 05.11.2014. After the dismissal of the revision, execution proceedings were initiated by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellants/defendants. The possession was also taken on06.01.2016.

7. After the possession was taken, a suit for recovery of money for the amounts that have not paid as rentals was presented on 26.09.2016. The period for which the rental arrears were claimed was from 01.08.2005 till the date of handing over the possession.

8. A written statement was presented by the defendants pleading that the plaintiff can claim rents only for a period of three years and not for a period prior to that. They would state that the maximum claim can be only a sum of Rs.82,000/-, and therefore, they sought dismissal of the suit with respect to the remaining portions as the same is barred by time.

9. On the basis of these pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount of Rs.7,07,067/- with subsequent interest from the defendant as prayed for ?

2. To what other relief ? ”

10. The plaintiff entered the witness box, and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9, and the 1^st defendant examined herself as D.W.1, and she marked Ex.B1 to B4.

11. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in The State of Tamil Nadu vs. M. Kazim Khaleeli and Others , (1993) 1 LW 667 , the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the LIMITATION ACT , and decreed the suit as prayed for. The trial Court had granted an interest of 12 % from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

12. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.19 of 2019 before the learned Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge at Namakkal. The learned Appellate Judge confirmed the judgment of the trial Court, against