STATE OF KERALA Vs. T.K. JAMEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in a suit for recovery of money, are the appellants. The claim is under the head 'arrears of rent'.

(2.) The first floor of the plaint schedule building was taken on rent by the defendants for a monthly rent of Rs. 1,694/- with effect from 1.10.1992. The ground floor was occupied by a third party. By the end of the year 1995, the ground floor of the building fell vacant and as desired by the defendants, the same was let out to them for housing the 'Consumer Disputes Redressel Forum'. It appears that the rate of rent payable for the ground floor was not fixed at that time, though discussions were on. The suit is filed for recovery of arrears of rent for the period from 15.1.1996 upto 1.11.2006 at the rate of Rs. 3.50 per sq.ft. The court below has granted a decree, fixing the rate of rent at Rs. 3.30 per sq.ft. The same is under challenge by the defendants.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the defendants have been occupying the ground floor of the building in question during the period in respect of which the claim for rent is made by the plaintiff. While it may be true that the rent payable was not fixed at the time of letting out the premises to the defendants, the fact remains that they have been in occupation of the same during the relevant period. As noticed by the court below there is no case that the entrustment was gratuitous. Even assuming that there was no rental arrangement as such between the parties, the defendants are bound to pay damages for use and occupation for the said period. Admittedly, for the first floor of the building which has been taken on rent by the defendants from the plaintiff, the rate of rent agreed to between the parties is Rs. 2.25 per sq. ft. The ground floor of the said building has the same plinth area as that of the first floor. The court below has fixed the quantum payable at 50% over Rs. 2.25 per sq.ft. The ground floor of a building will definitely fetch much higher rent than the first floor unless there are some circumstances which reduce the utility. No such case it put forward. Hence I hold that the rent fixed by the court below is only just and appropriate. I do not find any reason to interfere with the rate fixed by the court below.