Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 751 (GAU)

Samarendra Acharjee v. State of Tripura

2005-10-05

ANIMA HAZARIKA

body2005
JUDGMENT Anima Hazarika, J. 1. The instant First Appeal being No. 9 of 1988 renumbered as First Appeal No. 2 of 2005 has been taken to file for hearing on remand by the Division Bench of this High Court on 10.12.2004 in LPA No. 5 of 1997. 2. The lis between the parties relates to a claim of Rs. 85,800/- over the construction of certain huts, latrine and urinals, executed by the Appellant, during the 1980 communal disturbance, broke out in the State of Tripura, in order to accommodate the people affected by such disturbance and the said claim continues for the last more than two decades. 3. In order to determine the claim and the denial by the official Defendants i.e. the State of Tripura, including three officials, the background of the case is required to be appreciated which is narrated hereunder. 4. The Appellant being the Plaintiff instituted a suit being Money Suit No. 1 of 1982 against the State of Tripura, along with three other officials, arraying them as Party Defendants in the Court of Subordinate Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur seeking a decree for Rs. 85,800/- along with interest @ 6% per annum on Rs. 85,800/- from 16.7.1980 till realisation of the entire amount. 5. The Plaintiff, as averred in the plaint, disclosed that, there was a communal disturbance in the State of Tripura, in the year 1980 and the people affected by such disturbance took shelter in the accommodation provided by the Government. The Government constructed temporary huts, latrines, urinals for those homeless people. Those huts were constructed by the contractors of the locality. The Plaintiff, being a contractor, had been entrusted verbally to construct huts, latrines and urinals for the accommodation of refugees at Chellagong, within a specified time, with a specified rate, fixed by the official Defendants and accordingly completed the works as per specification of the Defendants and handed over the same to Defendants and received the payment. Considering the works undertaken by the Plaintiff and on being satisfied with the completion of works within the specified period, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amarpur verbally ordered the Plaintiff to construct six standard huts, fifteen standard latrines and fifteen urinals at Chellagong on the basis of specification of the Defendant No. 3, Amarpur, within 11 days and accordingly delivered the site, where the execution of works had to be completed. On such verbal instruction, the Plaintiff completed the works on the basis of standard specification and rate as approved by the Defendant No. 3 and handed over the possession on 16.7.1980 to one Sri Dinesh Chandra Das, the Camp Commandant, Chellagong and submitted the bill to the Defendant No. 2 for payment. But no payment was made and the correspondences continued between the officials and the Plaintiff. 6. The Plaintiff has further averred that, on 6.11.1980 the Defendant No. 2 wrote to the Executive Engineer, Amarpur and in the said letter the Defendant No. 2 admitted that on 16.7.80, Camp Commandant of Chellagong has officially received the construction made by the Plaintiff and informed the Defendant No. 3 for making payment. But on 20.11.1980 the Defendant No. 2 issued a letter to the Defendant No. 3, intimating him that there are irregularities in the whole construction work, undertaken by the Plaintiff, for use of refugees at Chellagong near Chellagong S.B. School and hence the letter was withdrawn and it stands as cancelled, which implies that the Defendant No. 2 did not take any responsibility for the construction works, as no requisition was made from his end and therefore intimated that if the Defendant No. 3 is satisfied with the works, he may make the payment and since the payment is denied, the Plaintiff has no other alternative but to file the suit, praying for the decree as indicated above after issuing notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on expiry of statutory period, he filed the suit. 7. On receipt of the summons, the Defendants entered appearance and contested the suit, denying all the averments made in the plaint, contending inter alia, that since there was no express or implied contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants in regard to execution of works as alleged and in absence of any valid and/or legal contractual obligations, no suit would lay and the very foundation of the suit being existed on verbal instructions of the official Defendants, the suit automatically would not lay. The Defendants have further asserted that in absence of an agreement of contract, as in the present suit, no standard rate can be prescribed by any answering Defendants. The Defendants have further asserted that in absence of an agreement of contract, as in the present suit, no standard rate can be prescribed by any answering Defendants. The written statement would further disclose the denial of each and every paragraphs of the plaint, including the execution of works and hence prayed for dismissal of the suit. 8. The Plaintiff after the institution of the suit, had filed an application for a local investigation in order to ascertain the conditions of the huts constructed by him. The said application for local investigation was objected to by the Defendants. However, the learned trial court appointed Sri Saktipada Chakravorty, Advocate as Commissioner for local investigation. The Commissioner visited the place on 22.10.1981 and submitted his report on 13.11.1981 which has been marked as Exhibit-7. The report of the Commissioner as well as consequences on the report would be dealt with later on at appropriate time. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court initially has framed only one issue which is quoted hereunder: 1. Did the Plaintiff construct the huts under a valid contract with the Defendant? How many units were agreed to be constructed and at what rate? However, the suit was transferred to the file of Additional District Judge, South Tripura, District-Udaipur. On receipt of the case, the Additional District Judge has framed three additional issues on 26.3.1983 which are quoted below: 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 3. Whether in the year 1980, during disturbance, the Government of Tripura has executed any works for construction of shades? 4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for? 10. During the trial, the Plaintiff has examined four witnesses in his favour to prove his case and exhibited eight numbers of documents vide Exhibits No. 1 to 8. On the other hand, the Defendants has examined five witnesses and exhibited ten numbers of documents vide Exhibits D-1 to D-10 in support of their case. 11. The learned trial court took up first the issue No. 3 for consideration. The trial court while deciding the issues, has referred the evidence of D.W. 1 and 2 and the evidence of the Plaintiff. 11. The learned trial court took up first the issue No. 3 for consideration. The trial court while deciding the issues, has referred the evidence of D.W. 1 and 2 and the evidence of the Plaintiff. The evidence of D.W.1, S.D.O. would reveal that, during the disturbance, the Government, in fact, has constructed huts through R.W.D. on the requisition of the S.D.O. after obtaining approval from the Relief Department. While deposing before the court D.W. 1 has stated that he did not pass any verbal order to the Plaintiff for construction of any hut. D.W. 2, the Executive Engineer, in his evidence stated that during disturbance in the year 1980 many huts were constructed on war footing basis for accommodation of refugees. D.W. 2 has further stated that with the approval of the Relief Department, requisition was sent to him and they constructed the huts on the sites selected by the S.D.O. and no huts were constructed on verbal order. On the other hand, the Plaintiff as P.W. 1 deposed that the contractors executed the works on verbal order and thereafter papers were regularized and payments were made. The trial court therefore, has held that, during disturbance, the huts were constructed by the Government of Tripura, through the P.W.D. on the requisition made by the S.D.O. after obtaining approval from the Relief Department. Issue No. 3 was decided accordingly. 12. The trial court after holding the issue No. 3, that the huts were constructed during the disturbance, took up issue No. 1 and 2. In regard to issue No. 2, the learned trial court has held, after hearing the submissions made by the parties, that the suit is maintainable. In coming to the said conclusion, the learned trial court relied on submission made by the counsel for the Plaintiff and referred Section 70 of the Contract Act, though the learned Government pleader referred Article 299 of the Constitution of India which has no bearing in the present context. While deciding the issue No. 1, the learned trial court upon consideration of the material evidences on record and the documents exhibited and on the submissions made by the parties, disbelieved the story set out by the Plaintiff for want of corroboration. The learned trial court has disbelieved the material exhibits 6 and 7 proved by the Plaintiff. While deciding the issue No. 1, the learned trial court upon consideration of the material evidences on record and the documents exhibited and on the submissions made by the parties, disbelieved the story set out by the Plaintiff for want of corroboration. The learned trial court has disbelieved the material exhibits 6 and 7 proved by the Plaintiff. Exhibits 6 relates to a document of receipt by the Camp Commandant after completion of huts which was handed over to him. The trial court disbelieved the exhibit-7, the report of the Commissioner, for want of definite report in regard to construction of latrine and urinal. The learned trial court in its totality of the evidences on record and exhibits, more particularly Exts. 6, 7, D-3, D-7 and D-11 and in absence of corroboration of the Plaintiff in regard to rate of construction for construction of huts, decided the second part of issue No. 1 against the Plaintiff and dismissed the suit. 13. That being aggrieved, the Plaintiff preferred an appeal before this Court, being First Appeal No. 9 of 1988. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the appeal and the Plaintiff thereafter preferred L.P.A. No. 5 of 1997 before the Division Bench of this Court, which has been disposed of on 10.12.2004, setting aside the judgment of the learned single judge, holding for an inadequate and superficial consideration of the evidence on record by the First Appellate Court, as the final court of facts and remanded the case for fresh disposal on merit as aforesaid. 14. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Advancing the argument on behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff Sri B.N. Majumder, Advocate has taken this Court, the evidences on record of the parties and the material exhibits proved by the parties during the trial. Since the learned court has held that the suit is maintainable, no argument has been advanced on that issue by the parties. The only argument advanced in regard to the issue No. 1 by the parties. The issue relates, as to whether the construction of huts were made under a valid contract with the Defendants and how many units were agreed upon to be constructed and at what rate. 15. On the other hand, Mr. The only argument advanced in regard to the issue No. 1 by the parties. The issue relates, as to whether the construction of huts were made under a valid contract with the Defendants and how many units were agreed upon to be constructed and at what rate. 15. On the other hand, Mr. S. Chakraborry, the learned State counsel appearing for the Respondents argued that, admittedly there was no valid contract either express or implied and in absence of any contract either express or implied, no decree can be passed by the court, more so, when the Plaintiff has failed to prove his case for the want of corroboration, no interference is called for by this Court. 16. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced and in order to resolve the controversy, this Court has gone into the evidences adduced by the parties. The Plaintiff, who was examined as P.W.-1, deposed that being a contractor he was called by the S.D.O. (Revenue) and requested to construct the huts, but date he could not specify, at the time of deposition. He was requested to construct 6 huts, 15 latrines and 15 urinals in the school field of Chellagong. He has admitted that, there was no written request but he was requested to complete the construction, as soon as possible. The S.D.O. told him that he would send the letter to the Executive Engineer with a request to contact with the Executive Engineer. The construction was to be made of bamboo fencing walls with Chan sheds. The size of the huts was to be 60 ft. by 15 ft. with 9 ft. height, with 4 partitions dividing the huts in five compartments each, with one bamboo fencing door and a window for each compartment. The size of the urinals was 9 ft. in length, 5 ft. in breadth and 5 ft. in height. Similarly, the specification was given for constructions of urinals and latrines and accordingly, he has constructed the huts, urinals and latrines as aforesaid and completed the construction on 16.7.1980. On completion of the work he had handed over the same to the Camp Commandant Shri Dinesh Das, who gave him a receipt, acknowledging the same. Thereafter, he met the S.D.O. who told him that he had written a letter to the Executive Engineer for making payment, which the Executive Engineer had received vide Ext. 1. On completion of the work he had handed over the same to the Camp Commandant Shri Dinesh Das, who gave him a receipt, acknowledging the same. Thereafter, he met the S.D.O. who told him that he had written a letter to the Executive Engineer for making payment, which the Executive Engineer had received vide Ext. 1. Thereafter, the S.D.O. had withdrawn Ext. 1 by canceling it, which is marked as Ext. 2. In cross-examination, by the Defendants, the Plaintiff has admitted that there was no written contract, but S.D.O. had requested him to construct the huts as aforesaid. The Plaintiff was confronted with material Exhibits D-5, dated 26.7.1980 wherein he wrote that Mihir Paul (D.W. 3) has instructed to construct him 6 more huts and all the suggestions made to him was denied, including the question as regards the absence of any representation from the Defendants side when the Commissioner went for local inspection. 17. The Plaintiff in support of his case has examined Dinesh Chandra Das, the Headmaster of Chellagong High School, as P.W. 2, who was the Camp Commandant. The fact that Shri Das was the Camp Commandant has been admitted by D.W. 5, S.D.O. Amarpur. The P.W. 2 has categorically stated that 16 sheds were erected in the school compound. The Plaintiff has erected 10 sheds, 15 latrines and 15 urinals. He gave the receipt acknowledging the completion of huts, latrines and urinals vide Ext. P/6. In cross-examination he has admitted that, on 22.10.81 he had submitted a petition to the Commissioner vide Ext. D-6 and D-6/1 in his signature. He has also admitted that, he had submitted a petition on 4.9.81 to S.D.O., Amarpur vide Ext. D-7 and D-7/1 is his signature. He has denied that the Plaintiff had not constructed any hut. In respect of local inspection by the Commission he has categorically stated that one hut was in good condition and another hut was half damaged and other huts were not there and other suggestions were denied by him. 18. In order to prove the case of the Plaintiff, he had brought one Hare Krishna Das to the witness box as P.W. 3, who was a refugee and took shelter in a hut in the compound of Chellagong Basic School. He has deposed that he saw the Plaintiff to erect those huts. 18. In order to prove the case of the Plaintiff, he had brought one Hare Krishna Das to the witness box as P.W. 3, who was a refugee and took shelter in a hut in the compound of Chellagong Basic School. He has deposed that he saw the Plaintiff to erect those huts. He has further deposed that he saw the Plaintiff to construct 4 huts initially and subsequently 6 more huts, 15 latrines and 15 urinals. He has admitted that he was one of the labour in the construction and got the payment from the Plaintiff. In cross-examination some suggestions were made to him, which he has denied. 19. The learned trial court on an application by the Plaintiff has issued a commission for local investigation to ascertain the factum of construction and the learned trial court has appointed Sri Saktipada Chakraborty, an Advocate as Commissioner, who was examined as P.W. 4. In his deposition he has deposed that according to the directions issued by the court on 21.9.81, he went to Chellagong on 22.10.81 at about 12 noon and found the Plaintiff, the Executive Engineer Shri Gopal Dutta and the following persons of the locality present at the site during his inspection. 1. Shri D.C. Das, Relief Camp Commandant and Headmaster of Chellagong Sr. Basic School. 2. Shri Golak Basi Das of Chellagong. 3. Smti. Ujjala Bala Nath of Chellagong 4. Shri Subal Ch. Saha of Chellagong 5. Shri Harekrishna Das of Chellagong 6. Shri Dhirendra Kr. Das of Chellagong 7. Shri Haralal Das of Chellagong. The relevant portion of the evidence of P.W. 4 is quoted hereunder: I was appointed as a Commissioner in this case by the Court. I was appointed Commissioner for local inspection. I executed the commission and submitted my report. This is the report. It is typed written and signed by me. Ext. 7. Relevant portion of Ext. 7 i.e. the Commissioner's report is quoted below: I enquired about the subject matter of the suit from the Plaintiff, the Executive Engineer and Persons present there. The Plaintiff showed me 6 huts near Chellagong School to the subject matter of the suit. Executive Engineer also admitted that those are the subject matter of the suit. Shri D.C. Das Camp Commandant and the Headmaster of Chellagong stated that 6 huts showed by the Plaintiff were constructed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff showed me 6 huts near Chellagong School to the subject matter of the suit. Executive Engineer also admitted that those are the subject matter of the suit. Shri D.C. Das Camp Commandant and the Headmaster of Chellagong stated that 6 huts showed by the Plaintiff were constructed by the Plaintiff. I also enquired from local people about those 6 huts. They also told me that those 6 huts were constructed by the Plaintiff during last communal disturbance for shelter of the displaced persons. I found 3 (three) huts measuring 15.95 metre x 4.90 metre chhangrass roofed huts in good condition and one structure of chhangrass roofed hut measuring 15.95 x 4.90 metre without any fencing whatsoever and also 2(two) Nos. Of chhangrass roof of two huts lying on the ground, but without any structure or fencing. I also found some structure seems to be a latrine but, it has got no fencing. The Defendants have declined to cross-examine the Commissioner appointed by the learned trial Court. 20. The Defendants on the other examined 5 (five) witnesses during the trial. D.W.-1 Shri S.B. Dutta, who was S.D.O. at the relevant time, deposed that, he had not passed any order written or verbal for construction of 6 huts, 15 latrines and 15 urinals to the Plaintiff. The letter dated 21.7.81 wrote to his successor vide Ext. D/8 and D-8/1 and denied that the Plaintiff had ever submitted any bill to him. During deposition, to a query made by the court, DW 1 had deposed that the S.D.O. can not construct any hut even in urgent cases. Being S.D.O., he can send the proposal to the P.W.D. who prepare the estimate and thereafter they are to obtain approval from the Government. In cross-examination by the Plaintiff, he denied the suggestions, but submitted that P.W. 2 Dinesh was the Camp Commandant and the refugees stayed in the school building as well as in the huts constructed in the area. 21. The Defendants have brought the Executive Engineer Shri Gopal Chandra Dutta as D.W. 2, who has deposed that he had not passed any order either written or oral for construction of 6 huts, 15 latrines and 15 urinals by the Plaintiff. He has admitted that he has issued the letter under his signature on 29.11.80 to the S.D.O., which has been marked as Exhibits D-9 and his signature as D-9/1 respectively. He has admitted that he has issued the letter under his signature on 29.11.80 to the S.D.O., which has been marked as Exhibits D-9 and his signature as D-9/1 respectively. Since he has not passed any order for construction, it is not possible to make any payment. However, he has admitted that during disturbances many huts were constructed on urgent basis for shelter of the refugees. He has further deposed that, a policy decision was adopted at the relevant time that the S.D.O. with the approval of the Relief Department and in turn send the requisition to the department and the department then constructed the huts on the sites selected by the S.D.O. and on the basis of this procedure, they have constructed all huts during that time. No huts were constructed on verbal order. He has denied that after completion of huts by the contractors the department have regularized the paper in their office. In cross-examination, he has denied that on verbal order the huts have been constructed. He has deposed that the department has prepared an estimate for construction of huts, latrines and urinals on the basis of the estimate, the department allotted works to the contractors in form 11 and other suggestions put to the DW 2 have been denied. 22. The Defendants have brought another witness Shri Mihir Ranjan Paul as D.W.-3 who has deposed that he has not given any oral or written order to the Plaintiff for construction of the suit huts. He has further deposed that he had submitted a report to the S.D.O. in regard to suits huts vide Ext. D-10 and D-10/1 is his signature. In cross-examination, when he was confronted with the report, he could not give a reply whether all huts were occupied by the refugees. However, he has admitted that he has seen the refugees staying in all the huts in the relief camp of Chellagong. 23. Another witness was brought by the Defendants who was examined as D.W. 4 Shri Tapan Bhattacharjee, who has deposed that he used to look after the relief camps during the disturbances including Chellagong. He has further deposed that he has not passed any order either written or oral for constructions of huts by the Plaintiff and he has submitted a report regarding suits huts vide Ext. D-11 and D-11/1 in his signatures. He has further deposed that he has not passed any order either written or oral for constructions of huts by the Plaintiff and he has submitted a report regarding suits huts vide Ext. D-11 and D-11/1 in his signatures. In the said report, he has written as per statement of the Plaintiff that Mr. Paul has ordered him to construct 6 more huts and he has not enquired or supervised regarding the suit huts of the Plaintiff. In cross-examination he has denied the suggestions made by the Plaintiff. 24. The most vital witness in the case in hand is D.W.-5 Shri Chandra Sekhar Chattopadhyay, who had deposed that he has issued Ext. 1 dated 6.11.80. On the basis of the report of Shri T.K. Bhattacharjee, he issued Ext. 1 dated 6.11.80 for making payment to the Plaintiff. Thereafter, he has made an enquiry as to whether any order has been passed for construction of huts to the Plaintiff and subsequently it was brought to the notice by Shri Mihir Paul, that, no order has been issued to the Plaintiff for construction of the huts and consequently, therefore, he has issued Ext. 2 dated 20.11.80 canceling his earlier order Ext. 1 dated 6:11.80. He has further deposed that after taking charge as S.D.O. he made an enquiry, as to whether his predecessor S.D.O. Shri S.B. Dutta has made/passed any order to the Plaintiff for construction of huts and Shri Dutta informed him that he has not passed any order for construction. He has further deposed that he has requested Mihir Paul and D.C. Das, Camp Commandant, to inquire in to the matter regarding construction of huts. Thereafter, Shri Paul submitted his report Ext. D-10 and Shri Das submitted his report Ext. D-3 to him. In cross-examination, he has admitted that D.C. Das was assigned the duty of the Camp Commandant. He has admitted that Ext-2 was issued on the verbal report of Shri M.C. Paul. He has admitted further that he has issued Ext. 1 on the basis of report submitted by Shri T.K. Bhattacharjee and the other suggestions put to him have been denied by this D.W.-5. 25. The question raised by the Plaintiff and resisted by the Defendants in this appeal, in regard to the decree prayed for, is yet to be answered by this Court. 1 on the basis of report submitted by Shri T.K. Bhattacharjee and the other suggestions put to him have been denied by this D.W.-5. 25. The question raised by the Plaintiff and resisted by the Defendants in this appeal, in regard to the decree prayed for, is yet to be answered by this Court. Before dealing with the aforesaid question it would be appropriate to deal with the averments made in the plaint and the written statement put forward by the Defendants including the evidence on record and material exhibits proved during the trial. 26. Admittedly, there was no written agreement between the parties to execute the work. In absence of written agreement, any kind of works is declared to be void. The case as averred by the Plaintiff in his pleadings, coupled with Exhibits would show that there was disturbance during June 1980 in Tripura, which has been admitted by the Defendants also. The learned trial court while deciding the issue No. 3 has drawn an inference that there was disturbance and the Government of Tripura had given shelter to those, who was affected by such disturbance. The pertinent point is, in such a situation, whether it is possible for the Government and/or its functionaries to observe the formalities required for the purpose of execution of work. Admittedly, disturbance broke out in Tripura and the Government had undertaken to give shelter to those, who were affected by such disturbance. The Plaintiff rests his claims that on verbal instructions he has completed 6 huts, 15 latrines and 15 urinals and on completion he had handed over the same to P.W.2 Shri Dinesh Chandra Das, the Camp Commandant. This fact, D.W. 5, in his cross-examination, has admitted that P.W. 2 was assigned the duty of the Camp Commandant, who has submitted his report Ext. D-3. The statement of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 would show that the Plaintiff has constructed the huts, latrines and urinals which this Court has taken note of it. 27. Another factor which the learned trial court has failed to appreciate is, the report of the Commissioner vide Exhibit-7. The commission, as ordered by the court has submitted its report which is quoted in the proceeding paragraphs. During the local inspection, the Executive Engineer was on the site along with seven other witnesses besides the Plaintiff. 27. Another factor which the learned trial court has failed to appreciate is, the report of the Commissioner vide Exhibit-7. The commission, as ordered by the court has submitted its report which is quoted in the proceeding paragraphs. During the local inspection, the Executive Engineer was on the site along with seven other witnesses besides the Plaintiff. Out of the witnesses present during local inspection, two persons have been examined by the Plaintiff being P.W.2 and P.W.3 who have proved the case of the Plaintiff. It is all the more surprising that, the remedy available to the Defendants in regard to the report of the Commission have not been availed of, as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Defendants have declined to cross examine the Commissioner, when he was in the witness box during the trial. They even did not file any revision petition before the court challenging the legality and validity of the report submitted by the Commissioner. Therefore, this Court has no option but to accept the report of the Commissioner in deciding the fact that there were huts in the Site which factum has been proved by P.W.2 and P.W.3. 28. Another factor in regard to Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 dated 6.11.80 and 20.11.80 respectively, has not been considered by the learned trial court. Admittedly D.W. 5 has issued the letter Exhibit 1, by which, the payment was directed to be made to the Plaintiff. The said order of payment was issued on the basis of report of Shri T.K. Bhattacherjee, who has been examined as D.W. 4 during the trial. The letter dated 20.11.80 was issued canceling the order of payment vide Exhibit 2, since there was no order issued to the Plaintiff to undertake the construction as brought to the notice by D.W. 3. The evidences of D.W. 3 and D.W. 4 would show that they have avoided the reply on material points, though DW 4 has admitted that, he has submitted his report that Zonal Officer Mr. Paul has ordered him to construct 6 more huts, whereas, D.W.-3 has stated that he has not given any oral or written order to the Plaintiff for constructs of suit huts. Paul has ordered him to construct 6 more huts, whereas, D.W.-3 has stated that he has not given any oral or written order to the Plaintiff for constructs of suit huts. From the totality of the entire evidence on record, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Plaintiff has proved his case that he had constructed the huts, latrines and urinals during the disturbance in order to accommodate the refugees and the beneficiaries is the Government of the Tripura. 29. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant vehemently argued that, Section 70 of the Indian Contract is applicable in the present case and the Appellant is entitled for the payment from government. In dealing with the point raised before this Court it is necessary to look into the law as embodied in Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. Section 70 reads as follows: Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously and such another person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered. 30. The benefit of Section 70 has been raised in a case reported in State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal & Sons, AIR 1962 SC 779 : (1962) 1 Suppl. SCR 876 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at Para 14 held as follows: It is plain that three conditions must be satisfied before this section can be invoked. The first condition is that a person should lawfully do something for another person or deliver something to him. The second condition is that in doing the said thing or delivering the said thing he must not intend to act gratuitously; and the third is that the other person for whom something is done or to whom something is delivered must enjoy the benefit thereof. When these conditions are satisfied Section 70 imposes upon the latter person the liability to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered. In appreciating the scope and effect of the provisions of this section it would be useful to illustrate how this section would operate. When these conditions are satisfied Section 70 imposes upon the latter person the liability to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered. In appreciating the scope and effect of the provisions of this section it would be useful to illustrate how this section would operate. If a person delivers something to another it would be open to the latter person to refuse to accept the thing or to return it; in that case Section 70 would not come into operation. Similarly, if a person does something for another it would be open to the later person not to accept what has been done by the former; in that case again Section 70 would not apply. In other words, the person said to be made liable under Section 70 always has the option not to accept the thing or to return it. It is only where he voluntarily accepts the thing or enjoys the work done that the liability under Section 70 arises. Taking the facts in the case before us, after the Respondent constructed the warehouse, for instance, it was open to the Appellant to refuse to accept the said warehouse and to have the benefit of it. It could have called upon the Respondent to demolish the said warehouse and takeaway the materials used by it in constructing it; but, if the Appellant accepted the said warehouse and used it and enjoyed its benefit then different considerations come into play and Section 70 can be invoked. Section 70 occurs in chapter-V which deals with certain relations resembling those created by contract. In other words, this chapter does to deal with the rights or liabilities accruing from the contract. It deals with the rights and liabilities accruing from relations, which resemble those created by contract. That being so, reverting to the facts of the present case once again, after the Respondent constructed the warehouse it would not be open to the Respondent to compel the Appellant to accept it because what the Respondent has done is not in pursuance of the terms of any valid contract and the Respondent in making the construction took the risk of the rejection of the work by the Appellant. Therefore, in cases falling under Section 70 the person doing something for another or delivering something to another can not sue for the specific performance of the contract nor ask for damages for the breach of the contract for the simple reason that there is no contract between him and the other person for whom he does something or to whom he delivers. Something all that Section 70 provides is that if the goods delivered are accepted or me work done is voluntarily enjoyed then the liability to pay compensation for the enjoyment of the said goods or the acceptance of the said work arises. Thus, where a claim for compensation is made by one person against another under Section 70, it is not on the basis of any subsisting contract between the parties, it is on the basis of the fact that something was done by the party for another and the said work so done has been voluntarily accepted by the other party. That broadly stated is the effect of the conditions prescribed by Section 70. 31. In V.R. Subramanyam v. B. Thayappa reported in AIR 1966 SC 1034 , in a similar situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, if a party to a contract has rendered service to the other, not intending to do so gratuitously and the other person has obtained some benefit, the former is entitled to compensation for the value of the services rendered by him, where, therefore, a building contractor made additional constructions to the building which were not done gratuitously and upon an oral agreement, claimed compensation at prevailing market rate against owner of the plot, he was entitled to receive compensation for the work done which was not covered by the contract, even if he failed to prove an express agreement in that behalf, the court may still award him compensation under Section 70 of the Contract Act. By awarding a decree for compensation under the statute and not under the oral contract pleaded, there was in the circumstances no substantial departure from the claim made by the building contractor. 32. It may be pertinent to mention that Section 70 of the Contract Act again came up for consideration before the Apex Court which has been reported in Union of India v. J.K. Gas Plant, AIR 1980 S.C. 1330 . 32. It may be pertinent to mention that Section 70 of the Contract Act again came up for consideration before the Apex Court which has been reported in Union of India v. J.K. Gas Plant, AIR 1980 S.C. 1330 . The Apex Court while deciding the case has referred AIR 1964 S.C. 152 , AIR 1962 S.C. 779 , AIR 1949 PC 39, AIR 1945 Mad 427 and AIR 1941 All 377 and had quoted a passage from a case reported in AIR 1945 Mad 427 which reads as follows- This is a very indirect benefit and Section 70 can in our opinion, only have application where there is a direct benefit to the person for whom the work is done. The persons who are enjoying the benefits of this work are the owners and occupiers of the building in the locality. It would be doing violence to the section to say that in these circumstances the work was done for the benefit of the municipality. The case before the Apex Court relates to delivery or surplus steel to the third party on the instruction of the Government of India. The Government of India denied its liability for making the payment. In such a circumstances the Apex Court has held that the Government of India derived benefit from transaction and therefore cannot escape liability to pay price of steel supplied to the third party. 33. In order to rest a claim under Section 70 of the Contract Act, there need not be a pre-existing legal obligation on the part of Plaintiff to execute work. So long as it is not an officious overbearance on the part of the Plaintiff to intermeddle and cause the work to be done, he can claim compensation in the form of money decree provided he did the work. It is fairly clear that the Plaintiff bonafide acted with the genuine intention of construction of huts, latrines and urinals, of course, if it is not intended to be free or gratuitous act, the Plaintiff is bound to be compensated by the other party. So long as the act is not illegal, the jurisdiction of the court to grant relief is always available so as to avoid unjust enrichment and also on the basis of an implied forgoing of a quasi-contract between the parties. 34. So long as the act is not illegal, the jurisdiction of the court to grant relief is always available so as to avoid unjust enrichment and also on the basis of an implied forgoing of a quasi-contract between the parties. 34. The facts pleaded and proved would go to show that the Plaintiff/Appellant has proved his case for construction of 6 huts, 15 latrines and 15 urinals, during the disturbance and the people took shelter in those huts constructed by the Plaintiff/ Appellant and the State of Tripura and its officials are the beneficiaries and they cannot now deny their obligations to make the payment against its own citizen and therefore, this Court holds that the Plaintiff/Appellant is entitled to get the decree claimed in the Money suit along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization. 35. From the facts stated herein above emerges that, the Government of Tripura was the beneficiaries of the works executed by the Plaintiff/Appellant, in order to give shelter to the refugees during the disturbance which has been proved by the Plaintiff/Appellant in the instant case and therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the judgment and decree dated 11.10.1985 and 23.11.1985, respectively, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Tripura, District Udaipur in Money Suit No. 1 of 1981 with costs. 36. Therefore, this Court holds that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 85,800/- along with interest @ 6% per annum on Rs. 85,800/- from 16.7.1980 till realisation of the entire amount. 37. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.