( 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. ( 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. ( 4 ) THE basis on which the Court below reached the conclusion that the compensation which could properly be claimed by the plaintiff for use and occupation could not exceed the rent which the Textile Superintendent was paying, was the omission On the part of the plaintiff to claim enhanced rent under the provision of either the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation control Act, 1951, which was operating until December 31, 1961, or the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961" which commenced to operate on that date. But, it is clear that the fact that the plaintiff did not make any application for fixation of enhanced rent under either of those two statutes can have no materiality or relevance. In his notice Ex. P-1, the plaintiff made it clear that he did not recognise the Assistant Director of Industries and commerce as his tenant and so called upon him to vacate and deliver possession of the property. If he so made it clear that there was no tenancy between him and the assistant Commissioner, it would have been illogical for him to make an application either under Section 4 (3) (iii) of the old act or under Section 14 (4) (ii) of the new Act for the determination of fair rent. An application for that purpose could be made either under the one statute Or under the other only by a landlord or a tenant and if according to the plaintiff he was not the landlord, of the Assistant Director and the assistant Director was not his tenant, any application by him under either of the two laws would have been incompetent. ( 5 ) SO, What the two Courts below should have proceeded to investigate was the measure oi compensation which could properly be claimed by the plaintiff by reason of the occupation by the Assistant Director of the building belonging to the plaintiff in opposition to his wishes. ( 5 ) SO, What the two Courts below should have proceeded to investigate was the measure oi compensation which could properly be claimed by the plaintiff by reason of the occupation by the Assistant Director of the building belonging to the plaintiff in opposition to his wishes. The rent which the Textile Superintendent was paying when he vacated the premises was fixed as long ago as on April 1, 1951 and it would be quite unreasonable for any one to think that the rent fixed nine years before the Textile superintendent vacated the premises can properly reflect the measure of compensation to which the plaintiff became entitled when the Assistant director continued in occupation of the premises. That being so, it is clear that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation in excess Of the rent which he had agreed to receive from the Textile Superintendent. ( 6 ) ONE of the methods bv which the quantification of the compensation so claimable by the plaintiff could be made is to proceed to enquire what rent the plaintiff would have been able to recover if he had leased the premises to another tenant after the Textile Superintendent vacated the premises. Another process by which it could be made is to investigate the extent of the enhancement which the plaintiff would have been able to secure had the Textile Superintendent himself continued as a tenant of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had made an application for enhancement of the rent under the provisions of the relevant statute which was then operating. Section 4 (3) (iii) of the 1951 Act savs that in the case of a residential house whose rental value exceeds Rs. 50 per mensem, an increase not exceeding 75% Of such rental value may be allowed by the Controller. ( 7 ) SECTION 14 (4) (ii) of the 1961 Act similarly provides for an enhancement to the extent of 50% of the rental value in the case of a residential building whose rental value exceeds Rs. 50 a month. ( 8 ) SO, it is clear that when the Textile Superintendent vacated the premises, the maximum enhancement which the plaintiff could have secured under the provisions of the old Act which was then operating would have been to the extent of 75% of Rs. 50 a month. ( 8 ) SO, it is clear that when the Textile Superintendent vacated the premises, the maximum enhancement which the plaintiff could have secured under the provisions of the old Act which was then operating would have been to the extent of 75% of Rs. 80, and so, the maximum rent which the) controller could have fixed under its provisions would have been Rs. 140 a month. And if an application had been made after December 31, 1961 when the new Act began to operate, he would have been able to secure a maximum rent of Rs. 120 a month. ( 9 ) TAKING all these features into consideration, it seems to me that the compensation for use and occupation to which the plaintiff is entitled should be fixed at Rs. 120 a month and in modification of the decrees of the Courts below, I make a decree for compensation for use and occupation for the period between January 1, 1960 and July 31, 1962 at Rs. 120 a month. Out of this sum of money deduction shall be given to the extent of Rs. 80 which was remitted by the Assistant Director of Industries and commerce on a bill sent to the Textile Superintendent by the plaintiff. The sum of money payable to the plaintiff under this decree shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of payment. The plaintiff will be entitled to costs in proportion to his success and the defendant will bear its own. --- *** --- .