B MALLIKARJUNIAH Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal which arises out of a suit for recovery of damages for use and occupation in respect of a residential building which belonged to him, but which had been leased to the Textile Superintendent, Mysore Division, on a monthly rent of Rs. 80 under a lease created on April 1, 1951. On the abolition of the office Of the Textile Superintendent of the Mysore Division on January 1, 1960, the Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce of Mysore occupied the building on January 2, 1960 without reference to the plaintiff. Thereupon on February 23, 1960, the plaintiff issued a notice Ex. P-1 calling upon the Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce to vacate and deliver possession of the building. The Assistant Director repudiated the demand and continued to be in occupation of the building until August 1, 1962 when it was vacated. Meanwhile on a bill which was sent by the plaintiff to the Textile Superintendent, the Assistant Director sent a bank draft to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 80 which represented the rent for January 1960. In respect of the subsequent period during which the building was in the occupation of the Assistant Director, the plaintiff sent no bills and the Assistant Director made no remittance.

(2.) The sequel was the institution of a suit by the plaintiff for the recovery of damages for use and occupation at Rs. 160 a month for a period of 31 months. The State Government against which this suit was instituted, resisted the suit on the plea that the Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce was in occupation as a tenant under the plaintiff under the lease created in favour of the Textile Superintendent and that no claim for damages for use and occupation could be sustained. But, both the Courts repelled the contention that the lease in favour of the Textile Superintendent bestowed any right on the Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce to continue to be in occupation of the premises as the plaintiff's lessee.

(3.) They were also of the opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for use and occupation, but they thought that those damages could not be claimed at a higher rate than Rs. 80 a month which was the rent which the Textile Superintendent had been paying. The plaintiff who is dissatisfied with the decree made in this way appeals, although the claim made by him is restricted to a sum of Rs.125 a month.