RFA 99/2002 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY This first appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.5.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (senior division) No. 1, Kamru p at Guwahati in Money Suit No. 207/1997 dismissing the suit filed by them. I have heard Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the appellantss. None appears for the respondents. The appellants as plaintiffs instituted Money Suit No. 207/1997 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup at Guwahati against the present respondents, as defendants, claiming a decree for Rs. 6,28,798/- with in terest thereon contending inter alia that pursuant to the lease agreement dated 9.11.1974 between the plaintiffs and the defendants the plaintiffs agreed to let out first, second and third floor of a building apart from the godown, one porc h and two garages to the defendants initially for five years commencing from 15. 4.1974 at a monthly rent of Rs. 3, 420/-, having a renewal clause, which tenancy , however, was subsequently renewed from time to time, the last being on 1.9.198 8 for a period of five years with effect from 1.4.1985 to 31.3.1990 enhancing th e monthly rent to Rs. 9,980/-. It has been pleaded that though prior to the expi ry of the said lease period i.e. on 31.3.1990 the plaintiffs vide various commun ications demanded renewal of the lease agreement and fixation of the monthly ren t at Rs. 18,500/- with effect from 1.4.1990, the defendants continued to occupy the house upto 31.1.1996 without executing any formal lease agreement enhancing the monthly rent payable as was done on earlier occasions. It has also been plea ded that pursuant to the requests made by the plaintiffs the assessment of the h ouse rent through the Central PWD was made which was though found to be Rs. 16,4 00/- payable for the period from 5.4.1994 to 31.3.1995, the said amount even was not paid and instead without executing any agreement and without paying the hou se rent as demanded by the plaintiffs the defendants vacated the rented house on 31.1.1996 by paying the house rent at the rate of Rs. 9,980 fixed vide agreemen t dated 1.9.1985 for the period from 1.4.1985 to 3.5.1986. The plaintiffs theref ore claimed the aforesaid amount being the difference of the house rent for the period from 9.4.1990 to 31.1.1996 at the rate of Rs. 18,500/- per month. The defendants contested the suit by filing the joint written statement admittin g that the rent agreements were executed for a period of five years which initia lly was done for the period of five years from 15.4.1974 to 14.4.1979 at the mon thly rent of Rs. 3,420 which however was subsequently renewed on 2.3.1981 for a period of four years with retrospective effect for five years at the rate of Rs. 5,325/-. It has also been pleaded that three agreements were thereafter execute d, the last being on 1.9.1988 for another five years, again with retrospective e ffect from 1.4.1985 to 31.3.1990 enhancing the monthly rent after the assessment made by the Executive Engineer, CPWD Guwahati Central Division. In Para 11 of the written statement it has also been pleaded that the Executive Engineer, CPWD was approached for reassessment of the monthly rent payable with effect from 1.4.1990 and the Executive Engineer, CPWD assessed the premises for the purpose of fixation of the monthly rent and recommended the fixation between Rs. 16,400 to Rs.18500/- per month and consequently the proposal for enhancemen t of the monthly rent was sent to the Central Headquarter by the defendant No. 5 without, however, any reply which resulted in submission of fresh proposal to t he headquarter for sanction of the enhanced rent at Rs. 18,500/- per month. The defendants however, have pleaded that since no agreement was entered into betwee n the parties for enhancement of the rent from Rs. 9,980/- to Rs. 18,500/- as cl aimed for the period 1.4.1990 to 31.1.1996 the plaintiffs is not entitled to the decree as claimed. The learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings of parties framed the foll owing issues for consideration and decision: - 1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 3. Is the suit bad for non joinder of necessary parties ? 4. Whether the suit is barred by principle of waiver and estoppels? 5. Whether suit is maintainable without valid service of notice u/s CPC? 6. Whether there is any enhancement of rent after 31.3.1990 and till defendants vacated the rental premises on 31.1.1996? 7. Is the plaintiffs entitled to get a decree for Rs. 6,28,718/- with costs and interest @ 18% per annum till realization? 8. To what other relief or reliefs if any, parties are entitled? The appellants/plaintiffs in support of their pleadings examined one witness and proved eight documents marked as Ext. 1 to Ext. 8. The defendants also examined one witness and proved three documents namely Ext. ’A’, ’B’ and ’C’. The learned trial court decided issue Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of the plaintiffss a nd issue No. 6 against the plaintiffs and consequently issue Nos. 7 and 8 also a gainst the plaintiffs. The learned trial court while deciding the issue No. 6 ag ainst the plaintiffs held that since there is no agreement for enhancement of re nt after 31.3.1990 i.e. from 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1996 the plaintiffs is not entitle d to the monthly rent of Rs. 18,500/- as claimed for that period. The trial cour t while holding so has also taken into consideration Ext. B communication dated 30.6.1997 issued by the Deputy Secretary, (GW), Govt. of India, Ministry of Wate r Resources to the Director (NER), CPWD rejecting the request of the defendants to enhance the rent from Rs. 9,980/- to Rs. 18,500/- per month for the aforesaid period and the Ext. C communication dated 23.9.1997 issued by the Administrativ e Officer of CPWD to the plaintiffs enclosing Ext. B communication dated 30.6.19 97. PW 1 in his deposition in clear terms have stated that though initially the rent agreement was for a period of five years with effect from 15.4.1974 at monthly rent of Rs. 3,420/-, the same was extended on execution of various lease agreeme nts, the last being executed on 1.9.1988 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1985 . It appears from the evidence on record that the initial rent was fixed at Rs. 3,420/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 5,325/- and then to Rs. 9,980/-. The said position is also accepted by the defendants in the written statement as well as by DW 1 in his evidence. Ext. 7 document was issued by the Administrative officer, CGWD to the Director ( Admn.) CGWD, Faridabad for renewal of the lease agreement and enhancement of the monthly rent payable to the plaintiffs with effect from 1.4.1990 at Rs. 17,500/ - enclosing therewith the lease agreement for his signature and the assessment c ertificate issued by CPWD, so that enhance monthly rent can be paid to the plain tiffs. The CPWD on the request of the defendants has reassessed the monthly rent at Rs. 16,400/- to Rs.18,500 for the period from 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1995. No leas e agreement however was executed by the defendants pertaining to the period from 1.4.1990 till the date of vacation of the building i.e. on 31.1.1996. The fixat ion of the monthly rent being based on the assessment of the CPWD which was the basis for enhancement of the monthly rent from time to time in respect of the bu ilding occupied by the defendants, the plaintiffs are, subject to limitation, en titled to the monthly rent as suggested by the defendants vide Ext. 7 at the rat e of Rs. 17,500/- with effect from 1.4.1990 to 30.11.1995, as claimed in the pla int, as they cannot be denied the same on the ground that the defendant did not execute any lease agreement and continued to occupy the building more so when on earlier occasion lease deeds were executed with retrospective effect. The Ext. 7 document was not taken into consideration at all by the trial court. The next question which requires consideration is whether the claim of the plain tiffs or part of it is barred by time. The plaintiffs instituted the suit on 30.9.1997 claiming Rs. 5,45,300/- as arrea r rent from 1.4.1990 to 30.11.1995, together with the interest amounting to Rs. 83,358/- totaling Rs. 6,78,718/-. Admittedly the tenancy was monthly tenancy. Rent for a month is due in the succe eding month. The suit for realization of rent has to be brought within 3(three) years of its falling due. Hence the claim of the plaintiffs from 1.4.1990 to 30.9.1994 is bar red by time the suit having been filed on 30.9.1997. The claim of the plaintiffs for rent from 1.10.1994 to 30.11.1995 is within the period of limitation. There fore, the plaintiffs are entitled to difference of rent for 1.10.1994 to 30.11.1 995 i.e. for 14 (fourteen) months at the rate of Rs. 7,520/- (Rs.17,500 - Rs. 9, 980/-) per month, totaling Rs. 1,05,280/- which amount will carry interest at th e rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of real ization. The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed to the extent indicated above. The Registry is directed to draw decree accordingly. The appeal stands allowed. No cost. The Registry is directed to send down the records.