Distinct cause of action and Article 62 limitation govern rent premium and arrears claims

A later, separate agreement to pay premium in addition to rent was treated as a distinct cause of action, so Order II, Rule 2 CPC did not bar a subsequent claim for arrears of rent. Premium unlawfully exacted under the Bombay Rent (War Restrictions) Act was recoverable as money received for the tenant's use, bringing the counter-claim within Article 62 of the Limitation Act rather than the residuary Article 120. Because that claim was filed beyond three years from receipt of the money, it was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff's claim for arrears of rent was barred by Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the footing that the earlier suit for premium arose from the same cause of action; (ii) Whether the defendant's counter-claim for recovery of premium paid under the Bombay Rent (War Restrictions) Act was barred by limitation, and whether Article 62 or Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act applied.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff's claim for arrears of rent was barred by Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the footing that the earlier suit for premium arose from the same cause of action.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the tenancy originally carried rent at Rs. 200 per month and that, in 1923, a separate arrangement was entered into under which the tenant agreed to pay an additional sum described as premium or pagdi. The later payment was not proved to have altered the original rent contract, but was treated as arising under a distinct and subsequent contract. On that footing, the claim for premium and the claim for rent did not arise from the same cause of action. Order II, Rule 2 applies only where the omitted relief is part of the same cause of action; it does not bar a later suit founded on a different contract.

Conclusion: The bar under Order II, Rule 2 did not apply, and the plaintiff's claim for arrears of rent was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendant's counter-claim for recovery of premium paid under the Bombay Rent (War Restrictions) Act was barred by limitation, and whether Article 62 or Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act applied.

Analysis: Section 8 of the Bombay Rent (War Restrictions) Act prohibited the charging of premium in addition to rent and made such payment recoverable by the tenant from the landlord. The money, once received by the landlord, was held for the tenant's benefit and was immediately repayable, bringing the claim within the nature of money received for the plaintiff's use. Article 62 therefore governed the claim, not the residuary Article 120. As the counter-claim was filed beyond three years from receipt of the money, it was time-barred.

Conclusion: Article 62 applied, and the counter-claim was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the court below was set aside and the plaintiff obtained relief for arrears of rent and compensation, while the tenant's counter-claim failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A later, separate agreement to pay premium in addition to rent constitutes a distinct cause of action, so Order II, Rule 2 does not bar a subsequent suit for rent; and a premium unlawfully exacted under the rent restrictions law is recoverable under Article 62 as money received for the tenant's use, subject to that article's limitation period.

---