1. Prior to the institution of the former suit by the same plaintiff against the same defendant, O.S. No. 140 of 1882, the plaintiff had tendered to the defendant a permanent patta fixing the rent at the rate now claimed, and it was decided in that suit that the defendant was bound to accept that patta, and that accordingly he should accept it and execute a muchilika. As a matter of fact the patta was not accepted nor the muchilika executed by the defendant after that decree. The present suit is for the recovery of arrears of rent for over four years prior to the suit at the rate specified in the patta already referred to which had been registered prior to its being tendered. The District Munsif decreed the plaintiff's claim for rent for three years and disallowed the prior rent claimed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Both parties appealed to the District Judge with the result that the District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that no pattas and muchilikas had been exchanged for the fasli for which rent was claimed.
2. In our opinion there was no necessity for the exchange of pattas and muchilikas for these years or for tender of patta by the plaintiff.
3. Under Section 9 of the Rent Recovery Act a landlord can maintain a suit for the recovery of rent though there has been no exchange of patta and muchilika, provided he had tendered such a patta as the tenant was bound to accept and the adjudication in O.S. No. 140 of 1882 that the tenant was bound to accept the permanent patt which had been tendered to him is binding upon the parties as res judicata. The plaintiff, therefore having tendered a patta embracing the fasli in question, which patta the tenant was bound to accept, we hold that he was not bound to tender a fresh patta for each or all of those faslis and can maintain this suit relying upon the tender of the permanent patta.
4. We therefore allow S.A. No. 121 with costs in this and the lower appellate court, and reversing the decree of the lower appellate court, restore that of the District Munsif. In S.A. No. 122, which relates to the rent disallowed by the District Munsif, the appellant's vakil argues that inasmuch as the patta he tendered was a registered one, the article of the Limitation Act applicable is 116, which prescribes a period of six years in the case of a suit ' for compensation for breach of a contract in writing registered.'
5. We are clearly of opinion that the registered patta tendered but which had been refused cannot be regarded as, or operate as, a contract entered into between the parties, though under Section 7 of the Rent Recovery Act, a suit may be brought to recover the rent payable by the tenant relying on the tender of a proper patta though it has not been accepted but refused as the tenant did not agree to it.
6. The decision of the District Munsif on the question of limitation is right, and we confirm the decree of the lower appellate court on that ground and dismiss this second appeal with costs.