Judgment :- S.M.Ali Mohamed, J. The above two appeals are against a common judgment of the learned single Judge in C.S.No.146 of 1981 and C.S.No.276 of 1983 respectively dated 10. 1985. O.S.A.No.176 of 1986 is against C.S.No.146 of 1981. The defen-dant-the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Collector of Madras (Accommodation Wing), is the appellant. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant-the State of Tamil Nadu, for recovery of a sum of Rs.43,66,959 with subsequent interest and costs. It is averred in the plaint that the premises known as, ‘Rushkeyrum’ bearing New Door No.149, Mount Road, Madras, belongs to the plaintiffs 2 to 8, who are the sons and daughters of the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff was the power of attorney agent of the plaintiffs 2 to 7 and property guardian appointed by the court of the eighth plaintiff who is a non-compose-mentis. The premises bearing New Door No.149, Mount Road, Madras, was taken over by the Accommodation Controller under Sec3 of Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act 1949 on 211. 1956 and the same was allotted to the Director of Industries and Commerce, on a Provisional Rent of Rs.2,617.50 per month subject to fixation of fair rent. The Accommodation Controller subsequently revised the provisional rent and fixed it at Rs.4,000, subject to fixation of fair rent with effect from 4. 1961. The Director of Industries and Commerce vacated the premises, which was then re-allotted to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, in 1973. The State of Tamil Nadu is thus the statutory tenant of the premises in question. The plaintiffs filed a petition before the Rent Controller, Madras on 1. 1974 for fixation of fair rent under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent of the premises on 24. 1978 at Rs.28,000 per month. The plaintiff and the defendant preferred separate appeals in H.R.A.No.483 of 1970 respectively. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant, but reduced the fair rent in the appeal filed by the first plaintiff to Rs.21,943. The plaintiff thereafter preferred a revision before this Court in C.R.P.No.756 of 1980. 1978 at Rs.28,000 per month. The plaintiff and the defendant preferred separate appeals in H.R.A.No.483 of 1970 respectively. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant, but reduced the fair rent in the appeal filed by the first plaintiff to Rs.21,943. The plaintiff thereafter preferred a revision before this Court in C.R.P.No.756 of 1980. Pending disposal of the revision petition, the plaintiffs filed the above suit for recovery of the difference between the fair rent as fixed by the appellate authority and the tentative rent fixed by the Accommodation Controller after giving notice under Sec.80, C.P.C 2.. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court was that the fair rent in respect of the building taken over by the Accommodation Controller has retrospective operation from the date of taking over of the building and hence the plaintiffs were entitled to claim the difference between the fair rent and the provisional rent fixed by the Accommodation Controller, from 211. 1956 when the building was taken over. However, they restricted the claim from 10. 1960 when the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 under which the fair rent has been fixed came into force. The difference in rent from 10. 1960 till 312. 1980 came to Rs.43,72,584 and deducting the sum of Rs.5,625 towards the maintenance and repairs from the plaintiffs’ claim of Rs.43,66,959. The plaintiffs further reserved their right to file a separate action after the disposal of C.R.P.No.756 of 1980. C.R.P.No.756 of 1980 was allowed on 210. 1981 and the fair rent of Rs.28,000 per month was restored and thereafter, the plaintiff filed the second suit, viz., C.S.No.276 of 1983, claiming a sum of Rs.15,18,288 with subsequent interest and costs thereon. 3. The appellant/defendant/the State of Tamil Nadu, raised the following contentions before the trial court. The fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller in H.R.C.No. 143 of l974 at Rs.28,000 per month was to take effect only from the date of the petition. The appellate authority reduced the fair rent to Rs.21,943 and the High Court restored the order of the Rent Controller at Rs.28,000 per month, and there was no direction for payment of fair rent at the time of tenancy. The appellate authority reduced the fair rent to Rs.21,943 and the High Court restored the order of the Rent Controller at Rs.28,000 per month, and there was no direction for payment of fair rent at the time of tenancy. It was further contended that the claim of the plaintiff was subject to Law of Limitation and at best, the plaintiffs would be entitled to claim the difference from a date three years before the date of the institution of the suit i. e. , from 1. 1978. The defendant has no objection for the plaintiffs’ claim being allowed from 1978 till the date of filing of the suit and the claim beyond 1. 1978 is barred by limitation. It was also contended that the plaintiffs claim was hit by 0.2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code and is not maintainable. 4. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether any part of the claim of the plaintiffs for arrears of rent is barred by time? 2. Whether the suit is hit by O.2. Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure? 3. To what reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled? 5.. O.S.A.No.175 of 1986 is against C.S.No.276 of 1983. C.S.No.276 of 1983 was filed by the plaintiff claiming the difference between the fair rent finally fixed by the High Court The fair rent was fixed by the appellate authority from 10. 1960 upto 20.8.1981. The plaintiffs claimed a sum of Rs.15,18,288 with subsequent interest and costs. It is also averred that the plaintiffs sold the suit property to Sri Tirupurasundari Hotels Private Limited. The appellant-defendant-the State of Tamil Nadu raised the same contentions as in the earlier suit. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether any part of the claim of the plaintiffs for arrears of rent is barred by time? 2. Whether the suit is hit by 0.2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure? 3. To what reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled? 6. Both the suits were tried together as the subject matter of the litigation and the issues involved were the same by the learned single Judge. 7. 2. Whether the suit is hit by 0.2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure? 3. To what reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled? 6. Both the suits were tried together as the subject matter of the litigation and the issues involved were the same by the learned single Judge. 7. In a well-considered judgment, learned single Judge has held that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree as prayed for in both the suits and rejected the contentions of the defendant With regard to Issue No.1 in C.S.No.146 of 1981 and C.S.No.276 of 1983, the learned Single Judge following the rulings of this Court in Second Appeal No.1615 of 1969 in Dr.S.S.David v. State of Madras represented by The District Collector, Coimbatore and the ruling reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. K.N.Dhanasekaran, 93L.W. 207, held that the fair rent fixed for the building taken over by the Government, as a statutory tenant is payable retrospectively from the date of the tenancy subject to Law of Limitation. With regard to the question of limitation, the learned Single Judge, following the rulings of Privy Council reported in Mt.Bolo v. Mt.Koklan, 59 M.L.J. 621: A.I.R. 1930 P.C. 270: 127 1.C. 737: 57 L.A. 825 and Rangayya Appa Rao v. Bobba Sriramuhi, I.L.R. 27 Mad. 148 (P.C.) and also the ruling reported in J.M.Andrews v. Radio Engineering Company, A.I.R. 1963 Mys. 113, has held that no part of the claim is barred by limitation. With regard to Issue No.2, in both the suits, whether the suit claims barred under O.2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, since no submissions were advanced by the defendant, the learned single Judge has held that it was not shown as to how the suit is barred under the above provisions of Civil Procedure Code. The said issues in both the suits were also found against the appellant-defendant. Accordingly, the learned single Judge decreed the suit in C.S.No.146 of 1981 for a sum of Rs.43,66,957 with subsequent interest and costs and decreed the suit in CS.No.276 of 1983, for a sum of Rs.21,77,229 with interest and costs. Aggrieved by the above common judgment, the State of Tamil Nadu have filed the above two appeals. 8. Accordingly, the learned single Judge decreed the suit in C.S.No.146 of 1981 for a sum of Rs.43,66,957 with subsequent interest and costs and decreed the suit in CS.No.276 of 1983, for a sum of Rs.21,77,229 with interest and costs. Aggrieved by the above common judgment, the State of Tamil Nadu have filed the above two appeals. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the fair rent fixed for the building taken over by the Government, will operate only from the date of filing of the application and not from the commencement of original tenancy. It is also contended that under Art.52 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for a suit for arrears of rent is three years from the date when the arrears become due. It is also contended that the suit claim is barred under 0.2, Rule 2, C.P.C. 9. On the other hand, Mr.S.Govindaswaminathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs submitted that the contentions of the appellant-defendant are erroneous and unsustainable and there are no sufficient reasons to modify the well-considered judgment of the learned Single Judge. 10. We are unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that the fair rent fixed for the building taken over by the Government as a statutory tenant, will operate only from the date of filing of the application and not from the commencement of the original tenancy. In this connection, it is pertinent to point out that the premises known as, ‘Rush Keyrum’ bearing New Door No.149, Mount Road, Madras belonging to the plaintiffs 2 to 8 was taken over by the Accommodation Controller on 211. 1956 under Sec.3 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1949 and allotted to the Director of Industries and Commerce on a provisional rent of Rs.2,617.50 per month subject to the fixation of fair rent. The Accommodation Controller subsequently revised the provisional rent and fixed it at Rs,4,000 subject to fixation of fair rent with effect from 4. 1961. The Director of Industries and Commerce vacated the premises and the same was allotted to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in 1973 and it is the admitted case that the State of Tamil Nadu is a statutory tenant of the premises in question. 1961. The Director of Industries and Commerce vacated the premises and the same was allotted to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in 1973 and it is the admitted case that the State of Tamil Nadu is a statutory tenant of the premises in question. Even though the plaintiffs were entitled to claim the difference between the fair rent and the provisional rent fixed by the Accommodation Controller from 211. 1956 when the building was taken over by the Government, they restricted the claim from 10. 1960 when the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 under which the fair rent has been fixed, came into force. The plaintiff claimed the difference in the rent from 10. 1960 to 312. 1980. Ex.P-1 is the order of the Accommodation Controller dated 211. 1956 and it clearly shows that the rent of Rs.2,617.50 per month, is subject to fixation of fair rent. Proviso 3 and 4 to Sec.3(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 runs as follows: “Provided also that the rent payable shall be the fair rent, if any, fixed for the building under the provisions of this Act; and if no fair rent has been so fixed, such reasonable rent as the authorised officer may determine in such manner as may be prescribed; Provided also that the reasonable rent fixed by the authorised officer under the foregoing proviso shall be subject to such fair rent as may be fixed by the controller.” It is therefore clear the provisional rent fixed by the Accommodation Controller is subject to fixation of the fair rent under the provisions of the Act. The plaintiffs filed H.R.C.No.143 of 1974, before the Rent Controller, Madras, on 1. 1974 to fix the fair rent and the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent on 24. 1978 at Rs.28,000 per month. The learned single Judge has followed the ratio laid down by M.M.Ismail, J., (as he then was) in S.A.No.1615 of 1969 in the case of Dr.S.S.David v. State of Madras and a Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. K.N.Dhanasekaran, 93 L. W. 207, and has held that the fair rent fixed for the building taken over by the Government operates retrospectively from the date of tenancy and the recovery of the excess rent is subject to the Law of Limitation. 11. 11. In the above case, the question before the Division Bench of this Court was when a building has been taken over by the Government, under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and when the Government became tenant as provided under the Act, whether the Government is liable to pay fair rent fixed under the Act subsequent to such tenancy from the date of the commencement of tenancy or from the date of the application for fixing the fair rent. 12. The Division Bench after considering the relevant provisions of the Act independent of the reasoning of Ismail, J., in S.A.No.1615 of 1969 was of the following view: “The fair rent fixed pursuant to the proviso to Sec.3(5) of the Act will become effective from the date of commencement of the original tenancy itself subject to the Law of Limitation regarding the recovery of excess, where the fair rent fixed is more than the reasonable rent fixed by authorised officer. Where the fair rent fixed is less than the reasonable rent fixed by the authorised officer, then Explanation to Sec.3(5) would be attracted and the recovery of the excess amount or adjustment of the same shall be governed by the terms of the Explanation.” In view of the ratio in the above ruling of this Court, the learned single Judge was right in holding that the fair rent fixed for the building taken over by the Government operates retrospectively from the date of tenancy subject to the Law of Limitation. We find no reason to differ from the findings of the learned single Judge. Therefore, we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the fair rent fixed for the building taken over by the Government will operate only from the date of filing of the application and not from the commencement of original tenancy. 13. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that under Art.52 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for a suit for arrears of rent is three years from the date when the arrears become due and at best the plaintiffs would be entitled to claim a difference from a date three years before the date of institution of the suit, i.e. from 1. 1978. 1978. We are unable to accept the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Art.52 of Limitation Act, 1963 reads as follows: Description of suit Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run For arrears of rent Three years When the arrears become due. A similar provision in Art.110 of Schedule II of Indian Limitation Act (Act XV of 1877) which prescribes for a suit for arrears of rent, a period of limitation of three years reckoned from the time when the arrears become due was the subject matter of judicial scrutiny by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in the case of Rangayya Appa Rao v. Bobba Sriramulu, I.L.R. 27 Mad. 148 at 150 (P.C.) and it was held as follows: “The object of a Limitation Act is presumably to compel people who have actionable claims to sue upon them with due promptitude or to forfeit the right to do so at all. In such an act, the falling due of rent naturally means the falling due of an ascertained rent, which the tenant is under an obligation to pay and which the landlord can claim and, if necessary, sue for..... As long as proceedings are pending before the Collector and on appeal from him, before the civil courts, the rate of rent is in suspense, for no one can say what it will prove to be and that therefore no arrear of rent can be said to have become due within the meaning of the Limitation Act.” Therefore, the right to sue for enhanced rent accrues when the enhanced rent is ascertained. With regard to when the right to sue accrues, the leading decision on the subject is that of the Privy Council in Mt.Bolo v. Mt.Koklan, 59 M.L.J. 621: 127 I.C. 753: A.I.R. 1930 P.C. 270: 57 I.A. 825. With regard to when the right to sue accrues, the leading decision on the subject is that of the Privy Council in Mt.Bolo v. Mt.Koklan, 59 M.L.J. 621: 127 I.C. 753: A.I.R. 1930 P.C. 270: 57 I.A. 825. Therein, Sir Benod Mitter observed as follows: “There can be no ‘right to sue’ until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement, or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right, by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted.” The said principle was restated and followed by the Judicial Committee in Annamalai Chettiar v. Muthukaruppan Chettiar, 60 M.L.J. 1: 58 I.A. 1: A.I.R. 1931 P.C. 9 and in Gobinda Narayan Singh v. Sham Lal Singh, 61 M.L.J. 9: 58 I.A. 125: 131 I.C. 753: A.I.R. 1931 P.C. 89 and the same view has been followed by our Supreme Court in the case reported in Rukhmabai v. Laxminarayan, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 335. 14. In the instant case, the enhanced rent was payable and fell due only when the enhanced rent was ascertained, i.e. when the fair rent was fixed by the Rent Controller on 224.1978 in H.R.C.No.143 of 1974 at Rs.28,000 per month. The respondent/ plaintiff has filed the suits only after the fair rent was ascertained and fixed by the Rent Controller in H.R.C.No.143 of 1974. It is, therefore, clear that from the date when the fair rent was fixed, the arrears of rent became due and the cause of action to sue accrued with regard to Art.52 of Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, the learned single Judge was right in his view that, “where the right asserted in the suit itself came into existence within the prescribed period before the date of the suit, it is obvious that its infringement, if any, must be within such period and consequently, no question of limitation arises.” In view of the above rulings of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the findings of the learned Single Judge on this issue is correct and we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. 15. The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit claim is barred under O.2. 15. The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit claim is barred under O.2. Rule 2 of C.P.C. But no arguments were advanced before the learned Single Judge on this point and before us also, no arguments were advanced to substantiate the contention that the suit claim is barred under 0.2, Rule 2, C.P.C. In view of the above, we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Single Judge has elaborately considered all the contentions raised by the appellant-defendant and has given a well-considered judgment and the appellant-defendant has not made out any case both on facts and in law to set aside the common judgment. 16. In view of the above, both O.S.A. Nos.175 and 176 of 1986 are dismissed and the judgment and decree in C.S.No.146 of 1981 and C.S.No.276 of 1983 respectively are confirmed. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.