1. This appeal is by the plain, tiffs. The suit was instituted for the assessment of fair and equitable rent and for the recovery of compensation for the use and occupation of the land for a period of three years and nine months. The learned Subordinate Judge in appeal has fixed a rate of Rs. 2-4-0 per acre as fair and equitable. The appellants are dissatisfied with this and they want the rate fixed by the first Court to be restored. There is no ground whatsoever for interference with this finding in second appeal.
2. The other question raised is one of limitation. As the sum at stake is only eight annas it was argued chiefly as a matter of interest. The contention of the appellants is that Article 120, Limitation Act, applies to the claim. I may note that this point was not taken at the trial and it appears to have been raised by the learned Judge in appeal himself.
3. On behalf of the respondents Mr. N.C. Das relied upon the decision of the Patna High Court in Bisheshar Singh v. Paton Mahton (1930) 17 A.I.R. Pat. 485. Inasmuch as Article 120 is a residuary Article and inasmuch as the learned Judges did not say what Article in their opinion applies, the point has not really been decided. They based their decision upon an earlier decision which I have examined : that is the case in Jai Narain v. Kuleswar Singh (1929) 16 A.I.R. Pat. 233. There again, there is no decision on the point and it appears that the claim was limited to three years on an admission made by the learned advocate appearing in the case. On behalf of the appellants reliance was placed upon a decision of this Court in Robert Watson and Co. Ltd. v. Ram Chund Dutt (1896) 23 Cal. 799. Mr. N.C. Das distinguished that case on the ground that it is concerned with a dispute between joint tenants. He contended that Article 115 is applicable to a case such as the present. That Article is in these terms:
For compensation for the breach of any contract express or implied not in writing registered and not herein specially provided for.
4. The implied contract was to pay reasonable rent. The defendants were perfectly willing to do so; only they were unable to agree with the plaintiffs as the figure at which a reasonable rent should be fixed. It seems to me impossible to say that they have been guilty of any breach of an implied contract. As Article 115 does not apply the case comes within the residuary Article. The decree of the lower Appellate Court will therefore be modified. The plaintiffs will get a decree for the period of three years and nine months instead of three years only. As the appellants have failed in their main contention the respondents will get their costs of this appeal. The cross-objection is not pressed and is dismissed without costs.