“If that is so then on the strict grammatical meaning Art.67, Limitation Act, would be applicable. This is indubitably a suit by the landlord against the tenant to recover possession from the tenant. Therefore, the suit clearly comes within Art.67 Limitation Act. The suit was filed because the tenancy was determined by the combined effect of the operation of Ss.12 and 13, Bombay Rent Act. In this connection, the terms of Sections 12 and 13 of the Bombay Rent Act may be referred to. At the most it would be within Art.66, Limitation Act, if we hold that forfeiture has been incurred by the appellant in view of the breach of the conditions mentioned in S. 13, Bombay Rent Act and on lifting of the embargo against eviction of tenant in terms of S.12 of the said Act. That being so, either of the two, Art. 66 of Art. 67 would be applicable to the facts of this case; there is no scope of the application of Art. 113, Limitation Act, in any view of tire matter. Sections 12 and 13, Bombay Rent Act, coexist and must be harmonised to effect the purpose and intent of the legislature for the purpose of eviction of the tenant. In that view of the matter Art. 113, Limitation Act, has no scope of application. Large number of authorities were cited. In the view we have taken on the construction of the provisions of Arts. 67 & 66, Limitation Act, and the nature of the cause of action in this case in the light of Ss.12 and 13, Bombay Rent Act, we are of the opinion that the period of limitation in this case would be 12 years. There is no dispute that if the period of limitation be 12 years, the suit was not barred.”
