P. K. Bahri,j. ( 1 ) THE only question which arises in this second appeal against judgment and decree dated September 13, 1972 of Shri H. K. S. Malik, Senior Sub Judge, is as to what is the period of limitation prescribed for recovery of arrears of house-tax due to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ? ( 2 ) VIDE letter dated February 14, 1968, the Assistant Assessor and Collector (Recovery Cell) of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, had required the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 19,558/75p. as arrears of house-tax due an respect of property No. 3432-35/111, Ganda Nala, Mori Gate, Delhi, calculated up to the period ending March 31, 1967. It was mentioned in the said notice that in case the arrears of house-tax are not paid upto February 22, 1968, the same shall be recovered by execution of distress warrant along with,20% penalty. This demand was challenged by the appellant by filing a civil suit on February 21, 1968, seeking perpetual injunction against the respondent-corporation. The appellant challenged the said demand on the ground that this particular property was an evacuee property earlier and had vested in the Custodian and the appellant became owner of the said property with effect from September 29, 1966, when a sale-deed was executed and registered in his favour by the government and thus he was not liable for payment of house-tax for the period prior to his becoming owner of the property and secondly, that in any case the demand raised by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was barred by limitation and thus the appellant was. not liable to pay arrears of house-tax beyond the period of three years. ( 3 ) MUNICIPAL Corporation of Delhi contested the suit besides taking. certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit on account of provisions of Sections 477 and 478 of the Act. The plea was taken that the demand raised by the Corporation was legal and the arrears of house-tax claimed in the said demand were not barred by limitation and the recovery could be effected from the appellant who is the owner of the property and the house-tax is the first charge on the property in question. The plea was taken that the demand raised by the Corporation was legal and the arrears of house-tax claimed in the said demand were not barred by limitation and the recovery could be effected from the appellant who is the owner of the property and the house-tax is the first charge on the property in question. In the replication the appellant reiterated his pleas and following issues were framed : (1) Whether the impugned demand notice dated February 14, 1968, of the defendant is illegal and unenforceable against the plaintiff? (2) Relief. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff-appellant appeared in the witness box and made his. statement proving the notice of demand Ex. PI on the record and deposed that he had deposited the house-tax due from him for the period 1966-67 and 1967-68 and he was not liable to pay the arrears of house-tax mentioned in the demand notice. He admitted in the cross-examination that he was in provisional possession of the property in question much earlier to the issuance of the sale certificate in his favour by the government. In rebuttal a clerk from the house-tax department appeared as DWI and he proved on record Exs. Dl and D2, copies of the extracts from the demand and collection register which show the period from which the house-tax arrears have been calculated. DW2, a clerk from the office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner, appeared in the witness box and deposed that provisional possession had been given to the plaintiff-appellant with effect from November 25, 1957. Vide judgment dated February 26, 1970, Shri Mohinder Singh, Sub-Judge, gave a finding that the demand raised by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, is covered by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. As the demand was barred by limitation, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi cannot recover house-tax for a period prior to February 21, 1965. So, he granted injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation of Delhi from recovering the arrears of house-tax of the period prior to February 21, 1965. The matter was taken up in appeal by the Corporation and Shri H. K. S. Malik, Senior Sub- Judge, vide impugned judgment held that no period of limitation is fixed for recovery of arrears of house-tax by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and such arrears of house-tax could be recovered by distress warrant and he placed reliance on Municipal Corporation, Delhi v, Balkishan Das, 1972. R. L. R. (N) 95, (wrongly mentioned as Note 92 in the judgment ). He also placed reliance on an unreported judgment in R. S. A. 102/68, Mittar Sain v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. As far as the facts are concerned they are Jot now in dispute before me. Counsel for the appellant frankly stated at the Bar that the sale-deed which had been issued in favour of the appellant plaintiff clearly mentioned that the plaintiff-appellant had been transferred the property in question with effect from November 25, 1957, a photo copy of the sale-deed has been produced by him during the course of the arguments which has been placed on the record, So, the legal position is clear that the plaintiff-appellant became owner of this property with effect from November 25, 1957. Ex. D2 clearly show that the arrears of house-tax claimed in the demand notice are of the period after plaintiff-appellant had become owner of this property. So, the contention raised that certain arrears of house-tax pertained to the period when the Central Government was owner of the property is now not available to the appellant. ( 5 ) THE only point which needs decision is as to what period of limitation applies to the claim of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in respect of the arrears of house-tax. Section 123 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act makes it clear that the property taxes are the first charge on the premises on which (hey are levied. Article 62 of the Limitation Act lays down the period of 12 years to enforce payment of money secured by a mortgage or otherwise charged upon immoveable property. Although in the case of Balkishan Das (supra) Prithvi Raj, J. had laid down the law that in respect of the house-tax to be realised by distress warrant there is no period of limitation applicable, yet even if one is to differ with this ratio then these housetax arrears could be recovered within a period of 12 years in view of Article 62 of the Limitation Act. ( 6 ) IT has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that residuary Article 113 which prescribes for a period of three years should be applicable to recover arrears of house-tax. ( 6 ) IT has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that residuary Article 113 which prescribes for a period of three years should be applicable to recover arrears of house-tax. But he has not been able to show as to why Article 62 is not applicable when the statute clearly makes the house-tax levied on a particular property as the first charge on that property. The matter is not res Integra because similar provisions appearing in the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, have been construed in Shidrao Narayamao Gumaste Patil v. Municipality of Athni, AIR 1943 Bombay 21 and it was held that arrears of house-tax being the first charge on the immoveable property are governed by Article 132 of the old Limitation Act, the corresponding Article in the new Limitation Act is admittedly Article 62. Earlier in Mt. Badrunnissa and Others v. Municipal Board, Agra, AIR 1939 Allahabad 510, similar provisions existing in the U. P. Municipality Act, 1916, came up for consideration and again it was held that such a demand of arrears of house-tax which is a charge on the immoveable property is covered by Article 132 of the old Limitation Act. Counsel for the appellant had made reference to Kalu Ram v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Another, (1966) 2 DLT 526 , which has dealt with a question with regard to recovery of damages for use and occupation recoverable under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act and it was held that only arrears which are not barred by limitation could be recovered. There is no dispute about this proposition of law. Our High Court has followed this in New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Jhangi Ram etc. , 1973 RLR (N) 34. The Supreme Court in New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Kalu Ram and Another, (1976) 3 SCC 407 , has also laid down the same proposition of law that demand must not be barred by limitation before it could be given effect to. However, the question as to what particular Article of Limitation Act applies to the demand in question was not subject matter of decision in these cases. ( 7 ) REFFERENCE was made to Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s. Palace Cinema and Another, ILR (1972) I Delhi 163. However, the question as to what particular Article of Limitation Act applies to the demand in question was not subject matter of decision in these cases. ( 7 ) REFFERENCE was made to Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s. Palace Cinema and Another, ILR (1972) I Delhi 163. This case pertained to recovery of advertisement tax and it was held that Article 120 of the old Limitation Act which is a residuary article would cover such a demand. Obviously the advertisement tax is not a charge on the property. Hence, in absence of any specific article of limitation applicable to such demand it was rightly held by a Full Bench of this Court that such a demand would be covered by the residuary article. ( 8 ) SO, in view of the discussion above, I hold that Article 62 of the new Limitation Act is applicable to the demand in question and thus the same was not barred by limitation when it was made. Hence, the appellant could not possibly succeed in this appeal. I need not express any view with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the ratio laid down in the case of Balkishan Das (supra ). I find no merit in this appeal which I, hereby, dismiss with costs.