JUDGMENT 1. - Heard both the learned counsel on admission of this second appeal.The facts giving rise to this second appeal in short are as follows:- The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit against the appellants-defendants in the Court of Civil Judge, Bali on 12.11.1979 stating that the defendant No. 1-Bansi Lal, now died (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was tenant of the plaintiffs-respondents and has taken the premises mentioned in para 2 of the plaint on rent of Rs. 11/- per month and he has also executed rent deed Ex. 1 on 9.6.1963 in favour of the plaintiffs- respondents. The plaintiffs-respondents sought the eviction of the defendants on various grounds including default. The defendant No. 2-Hem Raj was added as a party, because as per the allegations in the plaint, deceased sub-letted the premises to defendant No. 2. 2. The suit was contested by the appellants-defendants on various grounds stating that deceased never took the premises in question on rent from the plaintiffs-respondents and they also denied the title of the plaintiffs-respondents and claimed their title in themselves. It was also denied that deceased-Bansilal ever executed the rent deed Ex.1 in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and alternatively, it was stated that if for the sake of argument it was held that the rent deed Ex.1 was executed by the deceased, then, the plaintiffs-respondents gave a notice on 25.5.1966 terminating the tenancy of the defendants-appellants and that tenancy was determined on 9.6.1966, but even after 9.6.1966, no fresh notice was given by the plaintiffs-respondent and the suit was filed on 12.11.1979, therefore, the suit should be treated as time barred and the recourse of Art. 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1963') was sought and it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.Note.- Since the arguments are heard on admission, detailed facts are not being given in this order and only such facts are mentioned which 6 are necessary for the purpose of admission. 3. On limitation point issues Nos. 7 & 11 were framed by the lower Court and both were decided by the Civil Judge, Bali vide his judgment and decree dated 3.9.1986 in favour of the plaintiff-respondents and against the defendants-appellants. Against the said judgment and decree dated 3.9.1986, defendants-appellants preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Bali and the said appeal was dismissed by the learned Addl. Against the said judgment and decree dated 3.9.1986, defendants-appellants preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Bali and the said appeal was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali vide his judgment and decree dated 31.3.1990 and the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali has also decided the issues No. 7 & 11 in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and against the appellants-defendants. 4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 31.3.1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bali, the appellants-defendants have preferred this second appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants-defendants has raised some points about the maintainability of the suit on the point of limitation. It has been argued that by notice Ex.A/2 dated 25.5.1966, the plaintiffs/respondents had terminated the tenancy from 9.6.1966 and the suit was filed on 12.11.1979. Thus, the suit is clearly time barred as it has been filed after more than 12 years. The second point of the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants is that the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the notice dated 25.5.1966 Ex.A/2 is invalid, is wrong.Note.- Ex.A/4 dated 10.6.1966 is the reply to the notice Ex.A/2 by the deceased-Bansi Lal to the plaintiffs-respondents, in which the deceased has denied the title of the plaintiffs. 6. It has been further argued that the learned Additional District Judge by taking recourse of Ex.A/4 has held that by this Ex.A/4, deceased-Bansilal has denied the title of the plaintiffs-respondents and this amounted to forfeiture under section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act and if it is so, since notice Ex.A/4 is dated 10.6.1966 and the period of limitation if computed from 10.6.1966, the suit filed on 12.11.1979 is time barred, as it has been filed after more than 12 years. 7. The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants is that the learned Additional District Judge has erred in holding that there was second forfeiture vide application Ex.A/17 dated 8.4.1970.Note.- Ex.A/7 is an application written by the deceased-Bansilal on 8.4.1970 to the Administration, Municipality, Bali stating that he is the owner of the rented house and not the plaintiff-Laxmi Narayan and he has been in possession for the last 40 years and, therefore, mutation in the name of plaintiff-Laxmi Narayan should not be done and his possession for that purpose should be rejected. 8. 8. The learned Additional District Judge has held that fresh period of limitation has started from Ex.A/7 since in that application dated 8.4.1970, deceased-Bansilal has denied the title of the plaintiffs-respondents. On this point, in view of the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants is that these observations of the learned Additional District Judge are totally erroneous for, once the tenancy of the defendants had been determined by notice Ex.A/2 dated 25.5.1966, no fresh cause of action would arise from that application Ex.A/7. 9. At the admission stage in this case, really a substantial question of law arises whether Ex.A/7 dated 8.4.1970, which is an application written by deceased to the Municipality would in any way give benefit to the plaintiffs-respondents for the purpose of limitation or not or whether it would amount to second forfeiture or not. Therefore, on this point, this second appeal should be admitted. 10. Hence, this second appeal is admitted. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal:- Whether the learned Additional District Judge was not right in holding that there was second forfeiture and the limitation started from 8.4.1970 (the date of application Ex.A/7 written by deceased-Bansilal to Municipality) and in case it is held finally that the period of limitation cannot start from 8.4.1970, the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents would certainly be time barred and if started from 8.4.1970, the suit would be within limitation. Since the record has already been requisitioned and both the parties are represented by counsel, the case be listed for final hearing in the month of July, 2000.Orders passed. *******