https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198095 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. en-us Thu, 10 Sep 1931 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:31:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198095 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Sep 1931 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198095