AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Our answer to the question referred for our opinion is that the attachment of the plaintiff''s Immovable property which was made more than one
year after the date when the rent became due as specified in the puttah tendered, was not within the time limited by Section 2 of the Rent Recovery
Act VIII of 1865. The decision reported in Appayasami Pillai v. Subba ILR 13 M. 463 is in direct conflict with the decision in Thayamma v.
Kolandavelu ILR 12 M. 465 and we think that the view taken in the latter is correct.
Section 14 makes it perfectly clear that the rent, or any instalment of rent, is deemed an arrear of rent if it is not paid on the date on which it is
payable according to the terms of the puttah or custom; and it is not the less an arrear which accrued due on that date because the puttah had not
been tendered prior thereto, the tender being postponed to the end of the fasli or revenue year. Such tender is only a condition precedent to the
institution of legal proceedings for the recovery of the arrear of rent. Though coercive process against the land is postponed by Section 38 of the
Act until the expiration of the Fasli, yet u/s 2 limitation runs from the date when the rent (or instalment of rent) sought to be recovered became an
arrear u/s 14.
We may add that no real hardship results from these provisions of the law as instalments do not in practice fall due during the first few months of
the fasli and the landlord has therefore a reasonably sufficient time after the end of the fasli to take proceedings even in regard to the earliest
instalment in arrear.