Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.
1. This was a suit brought in July 1910 for arrears of rent falling due under registered leases the due dates being the 5th April 1905, 25th March 1906 and the 13th April 1907.
2. If Article 110 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, which specifically provides for suits for arrears of rent, applies the sue is barred. If, however, Article 116 is comprehensive enough to cover such a suit the claim is within time. The lower Court have followed a decision of Mr. Justice Burkitt at Allahabad Ram Narain v. Kamta Singh I.L.R. (1903) All. 138, and holding that Article and not 116 applies have dismissed the suit.
3. If the matter were rest Integra we should take the same view as Mr. Justice Burkitt, but having regard to the long series 0 authorities to the contrary effect, and the fact that the Legislature in re-enacting and amending the Limitation Act in 1908 has made no alteration in the Article 116 which had been interpreted generally by the Indian High Courts in the most comprehensive sense, we are unable to hold that Article no is applicable.
4. In 1871 the question came before the Privy Council whether the words ' breach of contract' in the Limitation Act of 1859 were used for the purpose of distinguishing actions to recover unliquidated damages for breach of contract from actions to recover debts, but their Lordships did not think it necessary or advisable that they should attempt to lay down what was the proper construction of those words as applicable to all cases: see Oukur Pershad Bustooree v. Mussamut Foolcoemaree Bebee (1871) 14 M.I.A. 134. The passing of the Act of 1877, which altered the wording of the Article in the Act of 18 71 corresponding with Article 116, forced the Indian Courts to come to definite conclusions upon the point in 1880 and 1881 : see Nobocoomar Mookhopadhya v. Siru Mullick I.L.R. (1880) Cal. 94; Vythilinga Pillai v. Thetohanamurli Pillai I.L.R. (1880) Mad. 76; Husain Ali Khan v. Hafiz Ali Khan I.L.R. (1881) All. 600; Ganesh Krishn v. Madhavrav Ravji I.L.R. (1881) Bom. 75. In all these cases it was held that Article 116 covered suits for, debts or sums certain due upon registered instruments. In the Madras case Article no was held to be inapplicable to a suit for arrears of rent due on a registered instrument as Article 116 gave a period of six years, and this view was adopted in Umesh Chunder Mundul v. Adarmoni Dasi I.L.R. (1887) Cal. 221 and Kesu Shivram v. Vithu Kanaji I.L.R. (1884) Bom. 320.
5. We think this body of authority must be accepted. We, therefore, reverse the decree of the lower Court and remand the case for trial on the merits and order that costs in this Court and in the Court of appeal be paid by the respondents and that the appellant's costs in the first Court be costs in the cause.