- (1.)THE appellant Jagarmath had taken fields Nos. 6 and 8 from Mt. Laxmi Bai, for Sambat 1977, i.e., 1920-21, on a rent of Rs. 125 payable on 15th April 1925. As defendant did not pay the amount as stipulated Laxmi Bai filed this suit for the recovery of Rs. 147-8-0 which is made up of Rs. 125 and interest at 1 per cent, per mensem.
(2.)THE first Court held that fields Nos. 6 and 8 were leased to the defendant for Sambat 1977 on a rent of Rs. 125 which was to be paid on 15th April 1921; that the rent of Sambat 1977 was suspended, but there is no evidence to show as to when it was to be paid; that plaintiff cannot take advantage of the period of suspension; and that the claim is barred by time. The lower appellate Court has held that when revenue is suspended under Section 65, Tenancy Act, rent is also suspended, and as the word "tenant" includes sub-tenants also, the period for the payment of rent by the sub-tenant will also be extended.
It has been proved that defendant was given a sub-lease for a year and Rs. 125 was to be paid on 15th April 1921. The suit for the recovery of this amount ought to have been filed on 15th April 1924, but it was filed on 18th September 1924, and the plaintiff alleged that the revenue for 1920-21 was suspended and half was ordered to be paid on 15th April 1922 and half on 15th April 1923 and, therefore, her cause of action arose on 15th April 1922 and 15th April 1923.

(3.)THE question to be considered is as to whether a sub-tenant who holds land on such terms as may be agreed between him and his landlord, can claim the benefit of Section 65, Tenancy Act, regarding the rent, which he has to pay to his landlord. It is clearly laid down in Section 38, Tenancy Act, that: except as otherwise provided a sub-tenant shall hold on such terms as may be agreed between him and his landlord.