UNION OF INDIA Vs. SENDHABHAI MADANBHAI DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is filed by original defendants against whom respondentoriginal plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 273/1986 for recovery of the charges for use of the suit premises of the plaintiff and also for recovery of possession of the suit premises. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is owner of land bearing survey No. 1914 and the construction made thereon. It is further case of the plaintiff that the suit premises was let out to the defendants at the monthly rent of Rs 400/ since 1st February 1982. The plaintiff has further averred that the defendants did not make any payment to the plaintiff for use of the suit premises and Rs 20,000/ became due and payable for a period from 1st February 1982 to 31st March 1986. The plaintiff served a notice calling upon the defendants to pay the said amount and also to hand over the possession of the suit premises. However, the plaintiff has not been paid any amount. It is further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has also become entitled to claim further amount of Rs 14,651/ with mesne profit of the suit property.

(2.) THE defendants resisted the suit and denied taking the suit property on rent. The defendants stated that since their office was shifted to Mehsana on 1st October 1982 there is no question of keeping the suit premises on rent on 1st February 1984. It is further stated by the defendants that the plaintiff had shown willingness to provide a free accommodation for the office purpose of the defendants and the head quarter of FI(K) was shifted from Ahmedabad to Mehsana from 1st October 1982 to 31st August 1985 and therefore, there is no question of rent as claimed by the plaintiff.

(3.) THE defendants therefore filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 74/90. Learned Appellate Judge also on appreciation of evidence recorded that there is no contract for rent between the parties and therefore the plaintiff has failed to establish that the suit premises was let out to the defendant @ Rs 400 per month. However, since, the defendants occupied the suit premises for a period from 1st October 1982 to 30th August 1985 and since, there is no evidence on record to prove that the occupation of the suit premises by the defendants was on account of gratuitous act on the part of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs 200/ per month by way of equitable charges fixed by the learned trial judge. On such finding and conclusion, learned trial judge dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 30th June 1992. Hence, this appeal.