1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent.

2. The only question is whether a portion of the claim is barred.

3. In the suit, rants ware claimed for the Bengali years 1309 to 1321. A decree was granted for the years 1318 to 1321 and it is admitted that the claims for 1309 and 1310 are barred. The rents in dispute are, therefore, for 1311 to 1317.

4. The defendants in this suit are lessees from Radhamani, widow of Gokul Chandra Acharya. Gokul had a son Ram Chandra, who was a minor when the lease was granted. After Ram Chandra attained majority, he on the 29th January 1908 brought a suit to cancel the lease and eject the defendants. He was successful in the first Court, but on appeal his suit was dismissed and a further appeal to the High Court was also dismissed. On the 21st September 1911, that is to say, after the dismissal of his suit by the first Appellate Court, Ram Chandra granted a putni lease to the plaintiff. On the facts, the plaintiff claimed to exclude from limitation the period during which the litigation was pending in the High Court and reliance is placed on the decision of the Judicial Commitee in Ranee Surnomoyee v. Shooshee Mokhi Burmonia 11 W.R. (P.C.) 5 : 2 B.L.R.P.C. 10 : 12 M.I.A. 244 : 2 Suth. P.C.J. 173 : 2 Sar. P.C.J. 424 : 20 E.R. 331.

4. That case was further considered by the Judicial Committee in Huro Pershad Roy v. Gopal Dass Dutt 9 C. 255 (P.C.) : 12 C.L.R. 29 9 I.A. 82 : 6 Ind. Jur. 546 : 4 Sar. P.C.J. 368 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 820 and it was pointed out that the facts of Ranee Surnomoyees case 11 W.R. (P.C.) 5 : 2 B.L.R.P.C. 10 : 12 M.I.A. 244 : 2 Suth. P.C.J. 173 : 2 Sar. P.C.J. 424 : 20 E.R. 331 were somewhat exceptional.

5. It is not necessary to refer to all the decisions on this point. It is established as a general principle that the right to demand the rent which falls due during the pendency of a suit for ejectment is not in suspense during the pendency of the litigation. Ranee Surnomoyees case 11 W.R. (P.C.) 5 : 2 B.L.R.P.C. 10 : 12 M.I.A. 244 : 2 Suth. P.C.J. 173 : 2 Sar. P.C.J. 424 : 20 E.R. 331 was one of exception to this general rule, and another exception may be found in the case of Hem Chandra Chowdhry v. Kali Prosanna Bhaduri 30 C. 1033 : 301. A. 177 : 8 C.W.N. 1. That was a suit for enhancement. In a suit for enhancement, different considerations arise than would arise in a suit in ejectment.

6. We think the lower Appellate Court was right in relying on the principle laid down in Huro Pershad Roy v. Gopal Dass Dutt 9 C. 255 (P.C.) : 12 C.L.R. 29 9 I.A. 82 : 6 Ind. Jur. 546 : 4 Sar. P.C.J. 368 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 820 and held that there were no facts in the present case which would justify the suspension of the period of limitation during the pendency of the suit brought by Ram Chandra, against the defendants.

7. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.