Arrears of rent beyond three years are time-barred under Article 52 of the Limitation Act.

The Plaintiff/Respondent (a Satra) leased land to the Defendant/Appellant (a Tea Estate) via a registered deed in 1985 for a 40-year term (1982–2021) at an annual rent of ₹8,554.

The lease contained a forfeiture clause for non-payment of rent by February 28th each year.

The Defendants defaulted on rent from 2008 to 2013. The Plaintiff issued an eviction notice on 02.01.2014 and subsequently filed a suit on 06.03.2014 for cancellation of the lease, recovery of possession, and realization of six years of arrear rent (2008–2013).

Both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.

The Defendants appealed to the High Court challenging the maintainability, the procedure followed by the lower appellate court, and the limitation period for rent recovery.

1. Whether the First Appellate Court's failure to formulate "points for determination" as per Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC vitiated the judgment.

2. Whether the decree for recovery of 6 years of arrear rent was in conformity with Article 52 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC, which mandates that appellate judgments state points for determination and reasons for the decision.

Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. and G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, establishing that "substantial compliance" with Order XLI Rule 31 is sufficient if the court addresses all substantive issues, even without formal framing.

Article 52 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a 3-year period for recovery of rent arrears from the date they become due.

Article 67, which allows 12 years for recovery of possession.

Kamla Bakshi v. Khairati Lal to affirm that only arrears falling within the 3-year window are "legally recoverable".

On the procedural issue, the High Court found that while the First Appellate Court did not formally frame points for determination, it had discussed all issues framed by the Trial Court and recorded specific findings; thus, there was substantial compliance with the CPC.

Regarding the limitation for rent recovery, the Court held that the lower courts erred by granting arrears for six years (2008–2013). Since the suit was filed on 06.03.2014, any rent due more than three years prior to the filing date was time-barred under Article 52.

The Court rejected the Respondent's argument that "continuous default" or Article 67 extended the money-claim period, clarifying that Article 67 pertains strictly to possession, whereas Article 52 governs the monetary recovery of arrears.

Consequently, the recovery was restricted to the legally permissible three-year window.

However, it modified the decree regarding the realization of rent, ruling that the Plaintiff is only entitled to recover arrears for the three years preceding the suit (2011, 2012, and 2013) rather than six years.

The orders for the cancellation of the lease and eviction of the Defendants were upheld based on concurrent findings of fact.

The case was remanded to the Registry to return records to the lower courts.