Limitation in lease disputes bars late challenges when termination and dispossession have already been acknowledged in writing.

A suit challenging termination of a lease and seeking a declaration that the lease continued to subsist was time-barred because the right to sue accrued when the lease was terminated and possession was taken over. The lessee's later letter acknowledging that the plot had been taken over was treated as an unequivocal admission of dispossession. In the absence of a special limitation article, Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 required the declaration suit to be filed within three years from the first accrual of the right to sue. The contention that the termination could be ignored as void was rejected, since an allegedly invalid act remains effective unless set aside by a competent court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit seeking declaration that the termination of the lease was invalid and the lease continued to subsist was barred by limitation, and whether the lessee had been dispossessed pursuant to termination.

Analysis: The lease was terminated by the lessor and possession was stated to have been taken over by panchnama. The lessee's subsequent letter expressly acknowledged that the plot had been taken over and sought refund or return of possession, amounting to an unequivocal admission of dispossession. The right to sue for a declaration challenging the termination accrued at the latest when the lease was terminated and possession was taken over. A suit for a declaration not governed by a special article is required to be filed within three years from the date the right to sue first accrues under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The challenge raised almost eighteen years later was therefore outside limitation. The plea that the termination could be ignored as void was rejected on the principle that an order, even if alleged to be invalid, remains effective unless set aside by a competent court.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation and the finding that the lease continued to subsist could not be sustained.

---