Separate cause of action for each lease instalment means limitation runs from each due date, restricting recovery to timely rentals.

In a lease for periodic rentals, default in each instalment gave rise to a separate cause of action on the due date, so limitation ran separately for each unpaid instalment and the residual limitation article applied. Amounts falling due more than three years before suit were time-barred, while later rentals remained recoverable; the decree was therefore reduced to exclude barred sums. The court also accepted delivery and installation of the equipment on the lessee's premises, relying on documentary evidence and drawing an adverse inference from the appellant's failure to produce the best evidence in its possession. Interest was allowed on the recoverable rentals, but the contractual compound-interest stipulation was replaced with simple interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent proved delivery and installation of the equipment at the lessee's premises; (ii) whether the suit for recovery of lease rentals was barred by limitation and, if not, to what extent the claim was recoverable.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent proved delivery and installation of the equipment at the lessee's premises.

Analysis: The respondent relied on documentary evidence showing purchase of the equipment, the lease agreement, the installation certificate issued by the lessee, entries reflecting receipt of rentals, and other contemporaneous records. The appellant failed to produce the best evidence in its possession, namely the register of plant and machinery, and no explanation was given for its non-production. On the civil standard of proof, the absence of the best available evidence justified an adverse inference and supported the respondent's version.

Conclusion: The respondent successfully proved that the equipment had been delivered and installed at the lessee's premises.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit for recovery of lease rentals was barred by limitation and, if not, to what extent the claim was recoverable.

Analysis: The lease required payment of monthly rentals on fixed due dates. Non-payment of each monthly rental constituted a separate breach, and the cause of action arose on each due date. The claim was therefore not governed by the rules applicable to continuing breach, promissory notes, bonds, or arrears of rent for immovable property. The residual article applied. On that basis, amounts falling due more than three years before the suit were time-barred, while rentals accruing thereafter remained within time. Interest was payable, but the contractual compound-interest stipulation was declined and simple interest was awarded instead.

Conclusion: The suit was partly within limitation and recovery was restricted to the period falling within limitation, with interest as modified.

Final Conclusion: The decree was reduced by excluding time-barred rentals, while maintaining liability for the rentals that accrued within limitation together with awarded interest and costs on the modified basis.

Ratio Decidendi: In a lease requiring periodic payments, default in each instalment gives rise to a separate cause of action on the due date, so limitation runs separately for each unpaid instalment and the residual limitation article applies where no specific article governs the claim.

---