JUDGMENT Nasim Ali, J. - This second appeal an out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The Defendants took settlement of 16 big has 15 cottas 9 chit tacks of land in the District of Catcher (a temporarily settled District in the Province of Assam) from the Plaintiffs by executing a registered kabuliyat on 10th Bhadra, 1341 B. S. corresponding to 27th of August, 1934, for 15 years at an annual rent of Rs. 70. The Assam (Temporarily Settled Districts) Tenancy Act. 1935, came into force on 1st March, 1937. On 26th July, 1939, the Plaintiffs instituted the present suit for recovery of arrears of rent from 1341 to 1345 B. S. at the stipulated rate of Rs. 70 per year. 2. The defense of the tenants is that they are not liable to pay more than Rs. 7-8 per year, i.e., 5 times the annual revenue of the disputed lands in view of the provision sec. 44, read with sec. 3 (17) of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Districts) Tenancy Act, 1935. 3. The Munsif held that the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover rent at the rate of Rs. 70 per year for 1341 and 1342 B. S. and at the rate of Rs. 7-8 per year for 1343, 1344 and 1345 B. S. 4. Two appeals were preferred before the lower Appellate Court-one by the landlords and the other by the tenants. The learned District Judge dismissed both the appeals and affirmed the judgment and decree of the Munsif. The present second appeal is by the Plaintiffs. The Defendants have also filed cross-objections. 5. The contention of the Plaintiffs in their appeal is that the Courts below were wrong in holding that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to get rent for the years 1343-45 B. S. at the kabuliyat rate. 6. Sec. 44 of the Assam Tenancy Act, 1935 is in these terms: Except as provided for in secs. 25 and 26, no rent agreed on between landlord and tenant or enhanced by court shall exceed the maximum rent in respect of the landlord; nor shall any such amount which is in excess of the maximum rent be lawfully payable. 7. The words "maximum rent" have been defined in sec. 3, cl. 25 and 26, no rent agreed on between landlord and tenant or enhanced by court shall exceed the maximum rent in respect of the landlord; nor shall any such amount which is in excess of the maximum rent be lawfully payable. 7. The words "maximum rent" have been defined in sec. 3, cl. (17) of the Act thus: Maximum rent or rate of rent " of agricultural holdings or parts thereof held on cash rent means a sum representing in the case of Cachar 5 times and in case of other districts 3 times the revenure rate. Where agricultural holdings or parts thereof are held on produce rent 'maximum rent ' means in the case of paddy % and in the case of jute l/3rd of the actual produce thereof. 8. Before the Act came into force, Plaintiffs had the right to recover rent at the stipulated rate of Rs. 70 per year. The question is whether this right of the Plaintiffs has been touched by sec. 44 of the Act. 9. Provisions of a statute which touch a right in existence at the passing of the statute should not be applied retrospectively in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendment. The Colonial Sugar Refining Company, Limited v. Irving [1905] A. 0. 369. and Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company, Limited v. Income Tax Commissioner, Delhi L. M 51 I. A. 421 (1927). Sec. 123 (i) (g) of the Act is in these terms: Nothing in any contract between a landlord and a tenant made before or after the passing of this Act shall entitle a landlord where the rent is payable in produce to recover as rent produce in excess of half (or in the case of paddy one-third) of the gross produce of the land for the year for which rent is claimed. 10. This section expressly takes away the pre-Act right of the landlord based, on contract to recover produce rent in excess of half of the gross produce of the land. There is no provision in the Act which expressly takes away the pre-Act right of the landlord to recover cash rent at the contractual rate. The contention of the tenants however is that the necessary implication of the words "nor shall.... be lawfully payable "in the last part of sec. 44 is that the section is retrospective in its operation. There is no provision in the Act which expressly takes away the pre-Act right of the landlord to recover cash rent at the contractual rate. The contention of the tenants however is that the necessary implication of the words "nor shall.... be lawfully payable "in the last part of sec. 44 is that the section is retrospective in its operation. The words "any such amount" after the word 'shall,"mean" amount of rent agreed on between landlord and tenant or enhanced by Court.' 11. Before the Act came into force the Court had no power to enhance the rent. The Act for the first time empowers, the Court to enhance the rent. The section therefore ccntemplates amount of rent agreed upon between landlord and tenant or enhanced by Court after the Act. We are therefore of opinion that contracts about rent after the Act arc hit by sec. 44 and that pre-Act contracts are not touched by this section. This view finds support from the omission of cash rent in sec. 123 (g) of the Act. The Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to recover rent at the contractual rate, i.e., Rs. 70 per year for the entire period in suit 12. The Defendants in their cross-objection urge that the Courts below should have held that the Plaintiffs' claim for rent for 1341 and 1342 is barred by limitation. 13. Before the Assam Tenancy Act came into force, the period of limitation for recovery of arrears of rent was 6 years. The Assam Tenancy Act, however, has reduced this period to three years. The Act was passed in 1935. Sec. 1 (2) of the Act is in these terms: It shall come into force on such date as the Local Government may by notification appoint in this behalf. 14. By notification under this section the Act came into force on the 1st of March, 1937. The cause of action for recovery of arrears of rent for 1341 and 1342 arose before the Act came into force. A right of suit is a vested right. The question is whether there is anything in the Assam Tenancy Act which shows that this vested right was taken away by the Act. There is no provision in the Act which expressly takes away this vested right. It is contended on behalf of the Defendants that the necessary implication of the provision in sec. The question is whether there is anything in the Assam Tenancy Act which shows that this vested right was taken away by the Act. There is no provision in the Act which expressly takes away this vested right. It is contended on behalf of the Defendants that the necessary implication of the provision in sec. 1 (2) of the Act that the Act shall come into operation at a date to be notified by the Local Government is that the legislature intended that the period of limitation would apply to suits the cause of action of which arose before the Act. In Iswar Chandra Pal v. Pritilata Biswas 48 C. W. N; 266 (1943). it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that from the provision of a statute (Sylhet Tenancy Act, 1936) which empowers the executive Government to fix by notification the date on which the Act is to come into operation it cannot be inferred that the legislature intended the Act to apply to suits the cause of action of which arose before the Act came into force. We are of opinion that this view is quite correct. We accordingly hold that the Plaintiffs' claim for recovery of arrears of rent for 1341 and 1342 is not barred by limitation. 15. The result therefore is that the cross-objections are dismissed and the appeal is allowed, Plaintiff's suit is decreed in full with costs in all the Courts. 16. There will be no order for costs in the cross-objections. Mitter, J. I agree. Sharpe, J. I agree.