SOBHAGMAL JAIN,J. - (1.) THE only question urged in this second appeal is that the learned Additional District Judge should not have decreed the plaintiff's suit for arrears of rent for more than three years before the filing of the suit. The plaintiff got possession of the suit premises during the pendency of the suit and, therefore, the decree is concerned with the arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation from the filing of the suit till dispossession. So for as the damages for use and occupation from the filing of the suit till dispossession are concerned there is no dispute and the judgment of the District Judge to that extent is affirmed. As regard the arrears or Rs. 1825/-, the plaintiff claimed this amount for the period from Samvat 2015 to the date of the filing of the suit. The suit was filed on June 4, 1970. The plaintiff could, therefore, claim arrears only for a period of three years prior to the filing of the suit. Article 52 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of three years for claiming arrears of rent. The plaintiff could, therefore, claim arrears of rent for the past three years before the filing of the suit. The additional District Judge was obviously in error in decreeing the entire amount of Rs. 1825/- as arrears of rent for the period from Samvat 2015 to the date of the filing of the suit. The finding that the rent of the premises was Rs. 300/- per annum is a finding of fact and cannot be gone into in second appeal. The judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge will be modified to the extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled to claim arrears of rent for the premises for three years before filing of the suit. The rest of the decree for other claims i.e. for damages, use and occupation for the subsequent period shall stand. The parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal partly allowed.;