1. Our answer to the question referred for our opinion is that the attachment of the plaintiff's immoveable 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 I.L.R. 13 M. 463 is in direct conflict with the decision in Thayamma v. Kolandavelu I.L.R. 12 M. 465 and we think that the view taken in the latter is correct.
2. 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 under Section 2 limitation runs from the date when the rent (or instalment of rent) sought to be recovered became an arrear under Section 14.
3. 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.