1931 (9) TMI 7 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code to the plaintiff's claim for arrears of rent.
2. Validity of the defendant's counter-claim for the recovery of premiums paid under the Bombay Rent (War Restrictions) Act, 1918.
3. Determination of the appropriate Article of the Indian Limitation Act for the counter-claim.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code to the plaintiff's claim for arrears of rent:

The plaintiff, owner of immovable property, sued the defendant to recover possession and arrears of rent. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's suit was barred by Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the plaintiff had previously sued for a premium in the Small Cause Court. The court analyzed whether the claims for rent and premium arose from the same cause of action. The judgment clarified that if rent and premium were agreed upon under separate contracts, they constituted distinct causes of action. The court found that the premium was a separate agreement made in 1923, not altering the original 1918 rent contract. Therefore, Order II, Rule 2 did not apply, and the plaintiff's claim for arrears of rent was valid.

2. Validity of the defendant's counter-claim for the recovery of premiums paid under the Bombay Rent (War Restrictions) Act, 1918:

The defendant counter-claimed for the recovery of premiums paid in 1923 and 1924, arguing they were prohibited by Section 8 of the Bombay Rent Act. The court examined whether the premiums were recoverable. Section 8(2) allowed tenants to recover premiums paid in violation of the Act. The court determined that the premiums were indeed recoverable, but the counter-claim's validity depended on the applicable limitation period under the Indian Limitation Act.

3. Determination of the appropriate Article of the Indian Limitation Act for the counter-claim:

The court debated whether Article 62 or Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act applied to the counter-claim. Article 62 provides a three-year limitation for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received for the plaintiff's use. The court concluded that the premiums paid by the defendant fell under Article 62, as the money was received by the plaintiff under circumstances obligating immediate repayment. Consequently, the counter-claim was barred by limitation, having been filed beyond the three-year period.

Separate Judgments:

J.W.F. Beaumont, Kt., C.J.:

The Chief Justice concluded that the plaintiff's claim for arrears of rent was not barred by Order II, Rule 2, and the premiums paid by the defendant were recoverable under the Bombay Rent Act. However, the counter-claim was barred by limitation under Article 62. The lower court's decree was set aside, and the plaintiff was awarded arrears of rent and compensation with costs, while the counter-claim was dismissed with costs.

S.S. Rangnekar, J.:

Justice Rangnekar concurred, finding that the agreements for rent and premium were distinct contracts. He agreed that Article 62 applied to the counter-claim, making it barred by limitation. The judgment supported the plaintiff's claim for rent and dismissed the counter-claim.

Conclusion:

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding arrears of rent and compensation, while dismissing the defendant's counter-claim as barred by limitation. The judgment emphasized the distinct nature of contracts for rent and premium and the applicability of Article 62 for the recovery of premiums under the Bombay Rent Act.