1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.--- Through this Civil Revision Application the applicant State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan has impugned Judgment dated 29-4-2009 passed by learned VIth Additional District Judge, Karachi South thereby dismissing Civil Appeal No,141 of 2007 and upholding the Judgment and Decree dated 20-8-2007 passed by VIIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South whereby Suit No,701 of 2002 filed by the applicant was dismissed.
2. ' Precisely the facts, relevant for the purpose of deciding, this Civil Revision, are that the respondent was tenant of the applicant in respect of a portion/space measuring 806 Sq. Feet situated on 3rd floor of the building known as State Life Building No,2-A, Wallace Road, Karachi at the monthly rent of Rs,1209 excluding electricity, gas, telephone and water charges. The applicant filed an application under section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in the year 1992 which was decided vide order dated 1-12-1997 and fair rent was fixed at the rate of Rs,12/- per. Sq. Ft per month from the date of institution of application i,e, 9-2-1992. The said order was challenged in F.R.A. No,13 of 1998 which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 12-1-2000, however prior to passing of the said judgment the respondent/tenant vacated the said premises on 31-10-1998. It is claimed by the applicant that after decision of the appeal till taking vacant possession of the premises in question and after adjustment of the amount of Rs,51987/- for the period of 1-11-1998 to 31-5-2002, a sum of Rs,6,55,845/- were outstanding against the respondent on account of rent.
3. According to the applicant, the respondent while putting the applicant into vacant possession of the premises in question on 31-10-1998 acknowledged the rent due and undertook to pay the same but failed to do so, hence the applicant filed Suit No,701 of 2002 for recovery of the outstanding amount. After recording of evidence and hearing the parties the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12-1-2000 on the sole ground that the suit filed by the applicant was barred under Article 110 of Limitation Act as the said provision of law provides a period of three years for filing suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The said judgment and decree was challenged in Civil Appeal No,123 of 2002 which was re-numbered as Civil. Appeal No,141 of 2007 and vide Judgment dated 29-4-2009 the said appeal was also dismissed, hence this Civil Revision.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the limitation in the instant case started from the date of the judgment passed by this Court in F.R.A. No,13 of 1998 viz. 12-1-2000, as such the suit filed by the applicant was well in time having been filed in July, 2002 i,e, within a period of three years as provided under Article 110 of the Limitation Act. On this point he relied upon the case reported in PLD 1972 Karachi 273. He further contended that the two courts below have misinterpreted the provisions of Article 110 of the Limitation Act and have erred in law and on facts while passing the impugned judgments. He further contended that the two courts below failed to take into consideration the undertaking/acknowledgment on the part of the respondent to make the payment of the outstanding amount of rent which provides fresh cause of action and limitation for claiming, the amount due and payable by the respondent. In support, he relied upon the case reported in PLD 1990 SC 681, PLD 2003 Karachi 523 and 2007 CLD 1456. According to learned counsel, the courts below have acted with material irregularity, hence the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside.
5. ' On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the judgments of the two courts below are well-reasoned and in accordance with the relevant law and do not require to be interfered into under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. He prayed for upholding the judgments of the two courts below. He relied upon the case reported in 1996 CLC 348.
6. ' I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with the assistance of the learned counsel.
7. According to Article 110 of the Limitation Act,, the period of limitation for claiming "arrears of rent" is three years "when the arrears become due". In this provision of law the word "due" means the date on which the rent becomes payable. Now examining the case in hand in the light of this provision of law, it appears that the applicant's claim pertained to the period from 9-2-1992 to 31-10-1998.
8. The plaintiff/applicant received physical possession on 31-10-1998. Last rent outstanding was for the month of October, 1998. Rent for February, 1992 became due on 1-3-1992 and the tenant was under legal obligation to make payment of the rent within 15 days of the expiry of time fixed in the tenancy agreement. Time available to the plaintiff/applicant for claiming the rent for the month October, 1998 expired on 15-11-1998, therefore, although as per Article 110 of the Limitation Act suit for recovery of arrears of rent should have been filed within three years by November, 2001 but the same was filed on 20-7-2002 i,e, after the stipulated period of three years. Apparently, it seems that the suit was barred by limitation.
9. In the case reported as Mst. Saba and another v. Mrs. Patricia A and 2 others (1996 CLC 348) almost similar situation, as in the present case, came up for consideration and it was observed as under:-- - "In the present case, the plaintiff is claiming rent for the period November, 1986 till March, 1989. The landlord/plaintiff received the physical possession of the premises on 27-4-1989. The last rent outstanding was for the month of March, 1989. The rent for the month of November, 1986 became due on the 1st day of December, 1986. According to section 17(2)(i) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, a tenant is obliged to pay the monthly rent within fifteen days of the expiry of the time fixed in the tenancy agreement. Therefore, the time available to the plaintiffs for claiming rent for the month of November, 1986 expired on 15-12-1989. Similarly, the period for claiming rent for the month of March, 1989 expired on 15-4-1992. In these circumstances, time available to the plaintiffs for filing suit for recovery of rents against tenants was up to 5-4-1992 but the suit was filed on 10-1-1993. In view of the facts and law discussed hereinabove, this suit is liable to be dismissed, ...."
10. ' In my view, the above-cited case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In another case reported as Anwarul Haq v. Messrs Standard Eastern Inc. (1988 MLD 1170) a suit was filed by the plaintiff on 27-5-1969 for recovery of arrears of rent from 1-1-1952 to 20-11-1962 and while discussing the objection as to limitation, it was observed as under:--- ... It is, therefore, evident that the suit is barred by limitation if I were to compute the period even from the last date of the period for which the arrears of rent is claimed, I may observe that Mr. Nasim Farooqi, learned counsel for the defendant has rightly pointed out that when a plaintiff claims rent month to month then the cause of action will arise for the recovery of rent for each month when the rent becomes due and payable for the month concerned."
11. ' The case relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant viz. PLD 1972 Karachi 273 is distinguishable as in that case an evacuee property was purchased and its sale was mandatorily required to be confirmed by the Custodian under section 16 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949 and for this reason the rents of the property became due after confirmation of the sale and determination of the rents, whereas in the present case there is no dispute regarding relationship of landlord and tenant and the premises is governed by the provisions of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 whereby tenant was under legal obligation to make payment of the rent within 15 days of the expiry of time fixed in the tenancy agreement.
12. ' Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that after decision of First Rent Appeal by this Court the respondent had acknowledged and undertook to make payment of the arrears of the rent as such giving a fresh cause of action to the applicant for recovery of such arrears, suffice it to so, as stated above, under the provisions of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, a tenant is obliged to pay the rent within 15 days of the expiry of time fixed in the tenancy agreement, as such time available to the plaintiff/applicant for claiming the rent for the last month of October, 1998 expired on 15-11-1998 and the suit for recovery should have been filed by November, 2001 but the same was filed after the stipulated period of three years on 20-7-2002. It may also be pointed out that section 9 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 provides that once the time has begun to run then no subsequent disability or inability to sue will stop it.
13. ' In view of dictum laid down in the above decisions, I am of the opinion that the suit filed by the applicant was hopelessly time-barred under Article 110 of the Limitation Act, as such the impugned judgments passed by two courts below require no interference. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed in limine.