Iqbal Ahmad, J.
1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit for arrears of rent, and for an injunction restraining Mt. Abbasi, who was arrayed as defendant 3, from realising the plaintiffs' share of the rent from defendants 1 and 2, who were alleged by the plaintiffs to be in possession of the house in dispute as tenants. On the 10th October 1917, Iaitqad Ali, defendant, and Abdulla, father of Iaitqad Ali, executed a kirayanama in favour of Salimullah for a period of eleven months with respect to the house in dispute. Salimullah died leaving the plaintiffs and Mt. Abbasi as his heirs. Abdulla is also dead, and defendants 1 and 2, who are the appellants in this Court, are his heirs.
2. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendants were in occupation of the house as tenants, and were liable to pay the rent claimed by them. The defence to the suit was that the rent agreement relied upon by the plaintiffs was not binding on the defendants, and that the defendants have all along remained in possession of the house as owners, without paying any rent to the plaintiffs or to Salimullah, their predecessor-in-title, and that the suit was time barred. The trial Court overruled all the pleas urged in defence, and decreed the plaintiffs' suit, and on an appeal by the defendants, the decree of the trial Court has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court.
3. The lower appellate Court has held that the kirayanama having been executed by Abdulla the predecessor-in-title of the defendants and by Iaitqad Ali, defendant 1, the defendants cannot be allowed to deny the title of their landlord, and as such the defendants were bound to pay the rent claimed by the plaintiffs. It also held that
there can be no adverse possession of the tenants on the expiry of the terms of the lease, but the tenants would be considered to hold on sufferance after the expiry of the term of the lease.
4. I am unable to agree with this observations of the lower Appellate Court. (sic)t is well-settled that a tenant, who holds over after the expiration of the term mentioned in kirayanama (rent-agreement), without payment of rent, becomes a tenant by sufferance, and time against the landlord begins to run from the moment that the term fixed by the kirayanama expires, under Article 139, First Schedule, Limitation Act: vide the cases of Bisheshwar Nath v. Kundan A.I.R. 1922 All. 318 and Pusa Mal v. Makdum Bakhsh  31 All. 514. A tenant is estopped from denying the title of his landlord during the continuance of the tenancy, but when there is a particular term fixed by the kirayanama, and after the expiry of that term the tenant continues to hold the leased premises without payment of any rent, he does so in the capacity of a tenant by sufferance, and his position is practically that of a trespasser. It follows, therefore, that if no rent was paid by the defendants or their predecessor in title within 12 years prior to the institution of the suit, the suit was time barred. But the trial Court, on the evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that it was proved that rent was paid within 12 years. The lower appellate Court did not record any finding on that point. As there is sufficient evidence on the record to determine this question of fact, which is necessary for the disposal of the appeal I, in view of the provisions of Section 103, Civil P.C., instead of remitting an issue to the Court below, have considered the evidence myself, and have come to the conclusion that the finding of the trial Court on the point is correct. (The judgment then discussed the evidence on this point and proceeded.) For the reasons given above, I dismiss the appeal with costs.