JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 12/ 02/1993 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Jagdalpur, in Civil Suit No.5B/ 90, by which the suit filed by the plaintiff - respondent for recovery of rent Rs. 85,941/- with interest has been decreed. 2. The respondent is the owner of the plot bearing No.8/2 area 75072 Sq.Ft. The godown situated over the plot was let out to the appellants/defendants on a monthly rent of Rs.800/-. Subsequently, since 01.06.1983, the open area was also taken on rent and occupied by the appellants. Appellant No.2 wrote a letter to Collector, Bastar for fixation of rent. Collector Bastar assessed the rent @Rs. 1061/- per month and made payable from 01.06.1983, but appellants did not make any payment towards the rent The appellants were served with legal notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter claiming arrears of rent, from 1-6-1983 to February, 1990, i.e. Rs.85,941/- with interest, a suit had been filed by the respondent. The appellants have admitted that the, disputed land is in their possession and they are using it. For fixation of rent, they asked the Collector, Bastar, who fixed the rent Rs. 1,061/- per month, but now they started raising voice saying that the Collector, Bastar had no right to fix the rent and the rent so fixed is exorbitant and arrears of rent so claimed by the respondent is barred by limitation. The appellants further pleaded that the respondent has no right to recover arrears of rent prior to April 1987, and without execution of written contract between the parties, the respondent has no right to enforce his claim. 3. Learned lower Court, after due appreciation of evidence on record, held that, the Collector, Bastar was eJi1powered to fix the rent The suit is not barred for recovery of rent prior to April 1987. Up to February, 1990, the amount due as rent comes to Rs.85,941/- and the respondent is entitled to recover the same with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 4. Learned counsel for both the parties are heard. Record of lower Court perused. 5. The contention of the appellants is that, without execution of written contract between the appellants and respondent, the respondent has no power to enforce his right of recovery of arrears of rent. 4. Learned counsel for both the parties are heard. Record of lower Court perused. 5. The contention of the appellants is that, without execution of written contract between the appellants and respondent, the respondent has no power to enforce his right of recovery of arrears of rent. On the contrary, the respondent contended that the appellants are stopped to raise the issue by their conduct. 6. Ex.P 1 is a letter written by the appellant No.2 to Collector, Bastar, which bears No. 1064 dated 10-5-1985. The appellant No.2 in this letter has admitted that from 1-6-1983, they are using the open plot measuring 156x67 Sq.Ft. belonging to the respondent and prayed for issuance of necessary certificate regarding rent. The Collector, Bastar, vide Ex. P-4, a letter dated 14-7-19.88, issued reasonability certificate as also fixed monthly rent at the rate ofRs.1 ,061/-. EX.P-2 is a letter issued by the appellant No.2 to the appellant No.4. This letter has been issued on. 4-1-1986. In this letter, it has been admitted that the land is being used for storage of steel and its reasonability certificate and fixation of rent arc being awaited from the Collector, Bastar. Ex.P-3 is a letter dated 10-2- 1988. In this letter, Assistant Manager, the appellant No.4 has communicated the appellant No.2 that Nazul Officer has fixed the rent and a copy there of has been sent to the respondent. EX.P-6 is a letter issued by the appellant No.2 to the respondent intimating that for payment of rent, case has been sent to headquarter, Bhopal for sanction. Ex. P-8 is a letter, by which the appellant NO.3 has proposed the respondent to accept a combined rent of Rs. 1,500/- for godown and open land. From all these undisputed documents, it is conspicuous that, since 1985, the appellants are accepting in writing that they are using the land belonging to the respondent and are ready to pay the rent as fixed by the Collector. Despite the aforesaid conduct, on the ground of non-execution of written contract, the appellants desire to escape from the liability. 7. Hon'ble the Apex Court, in para 4 of its judgment, in State of Orissa and others Vs. Mangalam Timber Products Ltd. with State of Orissa and others Vs. Despite the aforesaid conduct, on the ground of non-execution of written contract, the appellants desire to escape from the liability. 7. Hon'ble the Apex Court, in para 4 of its judgment, in State of Orissa and others Vs. Mangalam Timber Products Ltd. with State of Orissa and others Vs. J.K. Corporation Ltd. and another!, observed as below:- Para 4 : "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that no case is made out for interference with the judgment of the High Court. Before the High Court, the principal plea of the respondent was that there was no contract in writing and therefore, the applicability of the principle of promissory estoppel was not established. The High Court has rightly discarded this plea. To attract the applicability of the principle of estoppel it is not necessary that there must be a contract in writing entered into between the parties. We are not satisfied even prima facie that it was a case of an error committed by the State Government of which it was not aware. The State of Orissa should have, while holding out the representation, taken into consideration the fact - who will have to do the repartition and that the permission of the Government of India would be needed for the purpose. The State cannot take advantage of its own omission. The State Government having persuaded the respondent to establish an industry and the respondent having acted on the solemn promise of the State Government, purchased the raw material at a fixed price and also sold its products by pricing the same taking into consideration the price of the raw material fixed by the State Government and supplied; the State Government cannot be permitted to revise the terms for supply of raw material adversely to the interest of the respondent and effective from a back date and place the respondent in a situation which it will not be able to resolve. The respondent could not have revised its price from a back date and recovered it from innumerable consumers to whom its finished products were supplied at a fixed price." 8. The respondent could not have revised its price from a back date and recovered it from innumerable consumers to whom its finished products were supplied at a fixed price." 8. Here in the instant case, the appellants took the open land of the respondent on the assurance of paying rent to him and were making efforts to get the rent fixed by the Collector so that the rent as fixed may be paid to the respondent. Subsequently, the Collector fixed the rent. Despite that, lower to that was offered by the appellants and now appellants are denying the claim of the respondent on the ground that no written contract had been arrived at between the parties. In these circumstances, the principle of promissory estoppel is applicable, as held by the Apex Court in the State of Orissa and others (supra). Therefore, the appellants had no right to challenge the claim of the respondent regarding recovery of rent in the garb of non-execution of written contract. 9. The appellants further contended that, prior to April, 1987, the respondent is not entitled for arrears of rent being barred by limitation. On the other hand, the respondent contended that, the appellants, from time to time, acknowledged the liability, therefore, his claim is not time barred. 10. Vide Ex.P-1, dated 10.05.1985, the appellant No.2 admitted the right of the respondent, and in specific term stated that, since 1-6-1983, the open plot is being used by him. Again, vide Ex.P-2, acknowledgment of the right of the respondent has been made. Ex.P-2 has been written on 4-8-1986. EX.P-3 is a letter dated 10-2-1988 issued by the appellant No.3 to the appellant No.2 with a copy forwarded to the respondent. The respondent, vide Ex.P-5, submitted details of arrears of rent and prayed for its payment. This is a letter issued on 22-8-1988. The appellant No.2, vide Ex.D-1, informed the respondent that, his case has been sent for sanction to headquarter, and after sanction, payment will be made. Ex. D-1 has been issued by the appellant No.2 on 22-8-1988. Again on 2-2-1989, vide Ex.P-6, the same communication has been made to the respondent. Vide Ex.P-8, the appellant No.3, on 14-8-1989, asked the respondent to accept a rent of Rs. 1,500/-per month towards the godown and open plot. The suit, after service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed on 22-2- 1990. Again on 2-2-1989, vide Ex.P-6, the same communication has been made to the respondent. Vide Ex.P-8, the appellant No.3, on 14-8-1989, asked the respondent to accept a rent of Rs. 1,500/-per month towards the godown and open plot. The suit, after service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed on 22-2- 1990. 11. Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Limitation Act, read as below:- Sec. 18 : "Effect of acknowledgment in writing. - (1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such pr0P,erty or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. (2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, oral evidence of its contents shall not be received. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section,-. (a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set-off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right; (b) the word "signed" means signed either personally or by an age "It duly authorised in this behalf; and (c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right." Sec. 19: "Effect of payment on account of debt or of Interest on legacy. - Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made: Provided that, save in the case of payment of interest made before the 1st day of January, 1928, an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, - (a) where mortgaged land is in the possession of the mortgagee, the receipt of the rent or produce of such land shall be deemed to be a payment; (b) "debt" does not include money payable under a decree or order of a Court." Sec. 20: "Effect of acknowledgment or payment by another person. - (1) The expression "agent duly authorised in this behalf' in sections 18 and 19 shall, in the case of a person under disability, include his lawful guardian, committee or manager or an agent duly authorised by such guardian, committee or manager to sign the acknowledgment or make the payment. (2) Nothing in the said sections renders one of several joint contractors, partners, executors or mortgagees chargeable by reason only of a written acknowledgment signed by, or of a payment made by, or by the agent of, any other or others of them. (3) For the purposes of the said sections,- (a) an acknowledgment signed or a payment made in respect of any liability by, or by the duly authorised agent of, any limited owner of property who is governed by Hindu law, shall be a valid acknowledgment or payment, as the case may be, against a reversionary succeeding to such liability; and (b) where a liability has been incurred by or on behalf of a Hindu undivided family as such, an acknowledgment or payment made by, or by the duly authorised agent of, the manager of the family for the time being shall be deemed to have been made on behalf of the whole family." 12. From bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is manifest that, if acknowledgment of liability, duly signed by party or his agent or manager, has been issued, then a fresh period of limitation starts from the date of acknowledgment. Therefore, taking into account all the aforesaid documents, by which the right of the respondent from time to time, has been acknowledged conspicuously since 10.05.1985, hence his right to recover arrears of rent from 16-1983 is not barred by law oflimitation. 13. No other points have been raised, during argument. 14. In the result, the appeal fails, hence it is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Appeal Dismissed.