JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Defendants are the Appellants against the confirming judgment of the District Judge of Puri. Plaintiff's case is that the Defendants were the service tenure-holders under him in respect of the suit lands. They ceased to render service from 1949 under the Orissa Merged States Ordinance. The rent for the disputed lands was assessed by the settlement authorities on 6th November 1952, when the settlement records-of-rights were finally published. The suit is for recovery of arrears of rent for a period of 5 years from 1949 till the end of 1953 and for recovery of cess for the years 1952 and 1953. 2. The defence case was that they never rendered any service to the Plaintiff and that they were holders of Mahatran Jagir entitling them to enjoy the land free of rent without rendering any service. 3. The courts below rejected this contention. Before the learned District Judge a plea was taken that the Plaintiff was entitled to recovery of 3 years rent and the suit was barred by limitation for 2 years prior to 3 years before the suit. At the request of the Appellants, the learned District Judge admitted settlement records-of-rights as an additional piece of evidence. 4. Mr. Pal at first attempted to raise a contention on the basis of paragraph 10-A, sub-paragraph (a) of the Administration of Orissa States Order, 1948-- 10-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in the tenancy laws of the States, as continued in force under sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 4 (a) when land is held as service tenure, either under the ruler or any member of his family, the liability of the holder of such tenure to render service for the use and occupation thereof shall cease and he shall on payment of full assessment to the Provincial Government acquire occupancy right therein. that the Defendants were liable to pay rent only to the State Government and not to the Plaintiff. As this point has not been canvassed before any of the courts below, he did not press this contention. 5. The only point raised was on the question of limitation. Section 7(g) of the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950 (Orissa Act IV of 1950) (hereinafter caned the Act) runs as follows: 7. As this point has not been canvassed before any of the courts below, he did not press this contention. 5. The only point raised was on the question of limitation. Section 7(g) of the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950 (Orissa Act IV of 1950) (hereinafter caned the Act) runs as follows: 7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the tenancy laws of the merged States as contained in the tenancy laws of the merged States as continued in force by virtue of Article 4 of the States Merger (Governor's Provinces) Order, 1949 xxxx (g) when land is held as service tenure, either under the Ruler or any member of his family the liability of the holder of such tenure to render service for the use and occupation thereof shall cease, and he shall, on payment of such rent as may be assessed by the Provincial Government as fair and equitable, acquire occupancy right therein; By paragraph 10-A(a) of the Administration of Orissa States Order, 1948, the Defendants ceased to render service from 1949, but no fair and equitable rent was assessed until 6th November 1952, when the records-of-rights were finally published. In the settlement records-of- rights the rent and cess were assessed at Rs. 82/5/6 per annum with direction that payment would be made with effect from first kist of 1360 Sal. The suit was filed on 12th April, 1954. 6. The contention on the question of limitation is based on the wordings of Section 7(g) of the Act which says that the service-tenure-holders shall, on payment of such rent as may be assessed by the Provincial Government as fair and equitable, acquire occupancy right. Mr. Pal contends that under paragraph 10-A(a) of the Administration of Orissa States Order, 1948, a service-tenure holder ceased to render service for the use and occupation of the land and his liability to pay rent arises only from the date of determination of fair and equitable rent on payment of which he would acquire occupancy right. Such a construction of the section would be somewhat artificial. The Legislature never intended that there would be a period of vacuum during which an ex-service-tenure holder would continue the use and occupation of the land free from payment of any rent. If that was the intention, it would have been expressed in clear terms. Such a construction of the section would be somewhat artificial. The Legislature never intended that there would be a period of vacuum during which an ex-service-tenure holder would continue the use and occupation of the land free from payment of any rent. If that was the intention, it would have been expressed in clear terms. The construction that on fixation of fair and equitable rent the ex-service-tenure-holder would pay arrears of rent from the date of cessation of service as ultimately determined and would acquire occupancy right on such payment, appears to be more natural. Until determination of fair and equitable rent the landlord would not be in a position to recover arrears of root. Article 110 of the Limitation Act would apply to such cases. It lays down that the period of limitation is three years for recovery of arrears of rent from the time when the arrears become due when rents are ascertained and limitation must run from the date of the final order determining the rent and not from the close of the year for which rent is payable (31 Ind. App. 17). In this view of the matter the suit is within time. 7. No other point has been pressed. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Final Result : Dismissed