Residuary limitation governs post-tenancy use and occupation damages; possession alone can ground liability without contractual privity.

A claim for damages for use and occupation after termination of tenancy was held to fall under the residuary limitation article, because the article for profits wrongfully received applies only where a defendant has received property profits from another person. On the facts pleaded, that special article did not apply, and the suit remained protected by the savings provision, so it was within limitation. Liability for damages did not depend on privity of contract; it arose under the general law from possession of the property. As the defendants admitted possession, they were liable, and the decree against all defendants was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit for damages for unlawful use and occupation was governed by the residuary article or by the article applicable to profits wrongfully received, and whether it was within limitation. (ii) Whether the defendants other than the original tenant were liable to pay damages for use and occupation.

Issue (i): Whether the suit for damages for unlawful use and occupation was governed by the residuary article or by the article applicable to profits wrongfully received, and whether it was within limitation.

Analysis: The claim was for damages for use and occupation after determination of the tenancy. The article dealing with profits wrongfully received applied only where the defendant had received profits of immovable property from another person. There was no pleading or evidence that the tenant had received such profits from the other defendants. The suit therefore fell under the residuary article. The six-year period under the old Limitation Act had not expired when the new Act came into force, and the suit remained protected by the savings provision.

Conclusion: The suit was governed by the residuary article and was within limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendants other than the original tenant were liable to pay damages for use and occupation.

Analysis: Liability for damages for use and occupation did not depend on privity of contract. The right arose under the general law against a person in possession of the property. Since the defendants admitted possession, they were liable for the damages decreed.

Conclusion: The defendants were liable to pay damages for use and occupation.

Final Conclusion: The lower appellate court's decree against all the defendants was upheld and the second appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for damages for use and occupation after termination of tenancy is governed by the residuary limitation article unless the defendant has wrongfully received profits of the property, and liability for such damages arises from possession under the general law rather than privity of contract.

---