( 1 ) 1. This appeal is by ihe plaintiff and it has been argued, in person by the plaintiff He filed original suit No. 3090 of 1983 inter alia claiming recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for damages at the rate of rs. 2630/- p m. from 24-7-1983 till date of delivery of possession. ( 2 ) THE allegations were that the defendant misrepresented and obtained on false representation permission to occupy the first floor of the suit premises belonging to the plaintiff holding out false premises and turned out to be a nuisance and did not vacate the premises despite the several notices got issued by the plaintiff. Therefore, he prayed for a decree for recovery of possession and also for damages for unauthorised occupation of the premises by the said licencee, the defendant. ( 3 ) SUIT has been decreed but number of other claims made by the plaintiff including the quantum of damages per mensum for occupation has been reduced to Rs. 1,500/- per mensum. Therefore, the present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the damages awarded for unauthorised occupation from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 2,630/ -. ( 4 ) THE specific issue with which we are now concerned is issue No. 5 which is as follows : whether defendant is liable to pay rs 1500/- per month from 15-9-1983 as damages to the plaintiff ?" in the course of the judgment, the learned Judge has discussed the said issue No. 5 in detail at paragraph-9 of his judgment. He has taken notice of the fact originally when the plaint was presented, the compensation of damages for unauthorised occupation was claimed at Rs. 1500/- only It was thereafter an amendment was sought and he was permitted to claim damages at Rs. 2,6301 -. ( 5 ) THE evidence led by the plaintiff in order to establish that Ex. P. 23 was an order of the Rent Controller allotting the premises close to the suit premises which has also on the first floor to an employee of Kirloskar at the monthly rental of Rs. 1750/ -. He also has taken notice of the fact that the accommodation was some what similar in extent a part from the situation. P. 23 was an order of the Rent Controller allotting the premises close to the suit premises which has also on the first floor to an employee of Kirloskar at the monthly rental of Rs. 1750/ -. He also has taken notice of the fact that the accommodation was some what similar in extent a part from the situation. He, however, came to the conclusion that the other building rented out by an order of the Rent Controller was a ground floor building and also that the suit schedule premises from whom the possession was to be recovered was 20 years old and therefore, the rent fixed by the Rent Controller on unit purchase basis should not be taken as conclusive evidence for awarding damages. He, therefore, felt that it would be reasonable to award Rs. 1500/-pm from the date on which the occupation had become unauthorised, which was found to be 1-10-1983. ( 6 ) BEFORE us it is contended that defendant's own admissions have not been taken notice of, nor the purpose for which the premises was permitted to be occupied by the plaintiff as an institution which does some spiritual work. Having regard to these aspects the trial judge ought to have fixed the compensation of damages for unauthorised occupation at a higher rate. ( 7 ) WE are not inclined to agree with the above proposition. The Court has disbelieved the evidence of the plaintiff. In fact it has categorically found that he has not spoken the truth when he was in the witness box. Damages cannot be fixed on arbitrary basis damages must be pleaded clearly and established. What was established by the plaintiff was that in the region, similar accommodation as was occupied by the defendant would fetch about Rs. 1750/- p. m. a rent. When rent is paid and the premises was allotted under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, the tenant secures many benefits, the major benefit being the protection from eviction by the landlord. Therefore, in such cases, if a higher rate of rent is fixed for a premises, it cannot be compared with the case of unauthorised occupation of a guest who was permitted to occupy it by the owner of the building. Therefore, in such cases, if a higher rate of rent is fixed for a premises, it cannot be compared with the case of unauthorised occupation of a guest who was permitted to occupy it by the owner of the building. Therefore, the standard of measurement of compensation will not be the same as the rent fixed as compensation for use of the building with all the protections under the provisions of the Rent Control Act. Therefore, what the learned Judge has done, we think is right. He has approximated the claim to what was the original claim of the plaintiff. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order. ( 8 ) FOR the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. ( 9 ) A submission was made that interest must be enhanced, We do not see the scope for it, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 34 of the appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .