JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who is indebted to the Kerala State Housing Board, seeking to quash Ext.P10 notice issued as per Sec. 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 and Ext.P6 order of eviction dated 17.03.2011 from the building of the Housing Board. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows. 2. In the year 2009, the Kerala State Housing Board has allotted a shop room bearing No. S-35 on rent to the petitioner at its Revenue Tower, Kothamangalam. Case of the petitioner is that, even though petitioner had taken the shop room on rent, he could not start the business in the room due to financial problems, and also due to the reason that later he secured a job abroad. Therefore, according to the petitioner, petitioner was under the belief that Ext.P1 lease agreement was terminated and the shop room was repossessed by the lessor in the month of July, 2009, after adjusting the security amount towards the monthly rent due if any. 3. It is the case of the petitioner, 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 31.10.2009, demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 12,360/- towards six months rent due to the Board. Later, when the petitioner returned to India, he approached the 4th respondent and informed that he could not start any business in the shop room and accordingly surrendered the same and paid an amount of Rs. 4,000/- towards rent dues after adjusting the security deposit as demanded by the 4th respondent to terminate Ext.P1 lease agreement. 4. Subsequently, the 5th respondent issued Ext.P10 revenue recovery notice dated 09.05.2016, seeking to recover an amount of Rs. 32,617/- allegedly towards the arrears of rent due as on 19.04.2011. According to the petitioner, the above notice is issued without complying with the statutory requirement under Sec. 86 of the Kerala State Housing Board Act and the competent authority has not passed any order under sub-section (1) of Sec. 86 or has given an opportunity to the petitioner for contesting the proceedings. It is also pointed out that, the amount claimed by the respondents is time barred and, therefore, the entire actions of the respondents are arbitrary and illegal, liable to be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. It is also pointed out that, the amount claimed by the respondents is time barred and, therefore, the entire actions of the respondents are arbitrary and illegal, liable to be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 2 to 5, justifying the stand adopted. Among other contentions, it is stated that, as per clause 2 of the lease agreement executed by the petitioner with the Board, the Board is entitled to terminate the lease agreement by giving a notice and the petitioner shall within 30 days of the date of such a notice of termination, vacate and surrender the shop room, after clearing all the outstanding dues to the Board without any objection. The period of the lease agreement was for three years i.e. from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2012. It is also pointed out that, petitioner has not intimated the Board about his journey abroad, and on 21.04.2010, petitioner has remitted Rs. 4,000/- however, no notice or request was made surrendering the shop room and has not cleared the dues including common charges as stipulated in the lease agreement. 6. As per clause 13 of the lease agreement, if the lessee fails to use or utilize or close down the shop room for continuous period of more than one month and the lessee fails to inform the lessor the reason for non-use within one month from that event or before the date of payment of rent thereafter, the lessor is entitled to take action to evict the lessee and take possession of the shop room, or on issuing one month's notice to the lessee. Petitioner has informed the Board in the month of April, 2010 that he could not start any business in the shop room and therefore, surrendering the same. So much so, it is submitted that, petitioner has violated the conditions of the agreement and due to non-payment of arrears of rent, the same has accumulated. That apart, it is further submitted, petitioner is not disputing the arrears of rent and as per Ext.P11 letter dated 18.06.2016, petitioner has acknowledged and admitted the arrears of rent and hence limitation is not applicable in this case. This is the basic contention advanced by respondents 2 to 4. 7. That apart, it is further submitted, petitioner is not disputing the arrears of rent and as per Ext.P11 letter dated 18.06.2016, petitioner has acknowledged and admitted the arrears of rent and hence limitation is not applicable in this case. This is the basic contention advanced by respondents 2 to 4. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Housing Board, and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 8. Since serious disputes were raised with respect to limitation by learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the direction issued by this Court, the requisition made by the Kerala State Housing Board under Sec. 69(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (for brevity, the Act, 1968) is produced along with a memo dated 28.06.2019 by the 5th respondent. The said requisition is dated 17.12.2015. On a perusal of Sec. 69 of Act, 1968, it is clear that the proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act starts as and when a requisition is made by an authority to the District Collector to recover the amount from the defaulter. On a reading of the said document, it is clear that the Housing Board has required the District Collector to recover an amount of Rs. 32,617/- with interest at the rate of 12% from 20.04.2011. Apparently, the requisition made on 17.12.2015 to recover the arrears of rent due as on 20.04.2011, is clearly barred by law of limitation, since Article 52 of the Limitation Act clearly applies to the issue. 9. However, fact remains, a requisition was made on 17.12.2015 and on the basis of the requisition, recovery action is initiated evident from Ext.P10 recovery notice under Sec. 7 of Act, 1968, dated 09.05.2016. Though the claim was barred by limitation, petitioner as per Ext.P11 communication issued to the 3rd respondent, i.e. the Executive Engineer of the State Housing Board, dated 18.06.2016, has undertaken to pay the balance amount due out of Rs. 38,832/- after adjusting the security deposit provided by the petitioner viz. Rs. 20,400/-. Though the claim was barred by limitation, petitioner as per Ext.P11 communication issued to the 3rd respondent, i.e. the Executive Engineer of the State Housing Board, dated 18.06.2016, has undertaken to pay the balance amount due out of Rs. 38,832/- after adjusting the security deposit provided by the petitioner viz. Rs. 20,400/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said amount also cannot be recovered, since after Ext.P11, no action was initiated by the respondents to recover the amount admitted by the petitioner after the promise so made, even if the same is treated to be a fresh cause of action in accordance with Sec. 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board submitted that, consequent to the requisition made on 17.12.2015, the recovery action initiated as per Ext.P10 dated 09.05.2016 was pending before the authority and, therefore, petitioner is liable to pay the amount admitted by the petitioner as per Ext.P11 communication. 11. Having evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar, in my considered opinion, the issue revolves around Sec. 25(3) of Act, 1872, which read thus: “25. Agreement without consideration, void, unless it is in writing and registered or is a promise to compensate for something done or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation law:- An agreement made without consideration is void, unless:- (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) It is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith, or by his agent generally or specially authorized in that behalf, to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for the law for the limitation of suits. In any of these cases, such an agreement is a contract.” 12. On a reading of sub-section (3) above, it is clear, if it is a promise made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith, or by his agent generally or specially authorized in that behalf, to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor might have enforced payment, but for the law for the limitation of suits, it is a valid contract enforceable under law and a fresh course of action will arise thereupon. In that view of the matter, Ext.P11 has got all characteristic features of Sec. 25(3) of Act, 1872. Therefore, since, as per Ext.P11, petitioner has promised to pay certain amounts, it creates a fresh cause of action enabling the Housing Board to recover the said amount promised by the petitioner. It is clear, on the basis of the requisition made on 17.12.2015, recovery action dated 09.05.2016 was initiated against the petitioner and pending, and therefore, in my considered opinion, there is no legal inhibition standing in the way of recovering the promised amount, and accordingly petitioner is liable to pay the amount promised to be paid thereunder, i.e. Rs. 38,832/- the rent amount due, minus Rs. 20,400/- the security deposit available with the respondents. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get Ext.P10 quashed to the extent of the liability admitted by the petitioner in Ext.P11. So also, since the building is taken possession of by the respondents, relief against Ext.P6 eviction notice has become redundant. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to pay the amount specified above, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which, the respondents will be at liberty to resurrect the recovery action and recover the amount promised to be paid by the petitioner as per Ext.P11, in lump. 14. The writ petition is allowed partly.