( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the defendants 1 to 5 against the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 16 of 1997 on the file of the learned Additional district Judge, Ongole, decreeing the suit for Rs. 4,53,265/- towards rent due on the godown taken on lease by the defendants. ( 2 ) THE parties are described as arrayed in the suit for felicity of expression. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the 1st plaintiff, r-1 herein, that he was a businessman owned plaint schedule godown situated in ongole. While so, the District Manager of civil Supplies approached him and requested to lease out the godown on a monthly rent of Rs. 15,000/- for keeping rice and other commodities. He also represented that the monthly rent would be fixed by Roads and buildings Department (for short randb department) as per the prevailing rates. He also promised that he would refer the matter to the Randb Department immediately. With the said understanding, the Civil Supplies department occupied the said godown on 5-10-1990. While so, on 22-7-1993, the civil Supplies Department informed him that the monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 5,000/-per month. He learnt that in the last quarter of 1991, Civil Supplies Department was restructured in Andhra Pradesh and that the Managing Director was appointed in every District and that the District Collector was made ex officio executive director in that District. In fact, when the rent was fixed, his consent was not obtained. On that, he issued a notice demanding a rent of rs. 15,000/- per month for the entire lease period commencing from 5-10-1990 with interest. On that, the defendants sent a cheque for Rs. 85,000/- alleging that it was his full satisfaction of the rent due to him. He returned the same stating that he received communication from D-2 that the plaint schedule premises was vacated on 31-8-1993. He learnt that Randb Department, after due consideration, fixed a rent of rs. 15,000/- per month and communicated to the Civil Supplies Department. However, the said fact was not communicated to him. From this, it is clear that he was entitled to rs. 15,000/- per month. The defendants had vacated the premises on 31-8-1993. Therefore, he was entitled to an amount of rs. 6,64,137. 50 ps. with interest at 18% per annum. 15,000/- per month and communicated to the Civil Supplies Department. However, the said fact was not communicated to him. From this, it is clear that he was entitled to rs. 15,000/- per month. The defendants had vacated the premises on 31-8-1993. Therefore, he was entitled to an amount of rs. 6,64,137. 50 ps. with interest at 18% per annum. ( 4 ) THE 2nd defendant, A. P. State Civil supplies Corporation Limited (for short a. P. S. C. S. C. L. ), filed written statement, adopted by other defendants, refuting the claim made by the plaintiffs. It was denied that the District Manager has represented that the monthly rent would be fixed at rs. 15,000/- per month by Randb Department. After the occupation of suit premises by the andhra Pradesh State Essential Commodities corporation Limited, it was taken over by a. P. S. C. S. C. L. with effect from 1-11-1991. By a Circular dated 24-2-1992, the Joint collector was authorized to fix the rent and sanctioned payment of godown rent in respect of hired godowns. As per the guidelines, the Joint Collector has fixed rs. 5,000/- per month. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 85,000/- was sent to the 1st plaintiff through cheque bearing No. 905027, dated 15-7-1993 informing that the rent relates to the period from 1-11-1991 to 31-3-1993. The 1st plaintiff had returned the cheque without any basis. The defendants had vacated the premises on 1-9-1993. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the suit amount and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. ( 5 ) UPON the pleadings, the Court framed the following issues :1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim monthly rent at Rs. 15,000/-? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest on arrears of rents ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount ? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for subsequent interest at 18% per annum? 5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to ? ( 6 ) THE plaintiff examined himself as p. W. I, filed Exs. A-1 to A-17-Office Copies of Notices, acknowledgments and rental calculations made by Randb Department etc. Refuting their evidence, the Assistant manager, A. P. S. C. S. C. L. , was examined as d. W. I and filed Exs. B-1 to B-9-various proceedings issued by the Randb department, Mandal Revenue Officer and others. A-1 to A-17-Office Copies of Notices, acknowledgments and rental calculations made by Randb Department etc. Refuting their evidence, the Assistant manager, A. P. S. C. S. C. L. , was examined as d. W. I and filed Exs. B-1 to B-9-various proceedings issued by the Randb department, Mandal Revenue Officer and others. ( 7 ) THE learned Additional District judge, after considering the evidence placed on record, opined that the defendants had occupied the godown on 5-10-1990 and vacated on 31-8-1993. Therefore, the defendants were liable to pay rent till 31-8-1993. After considering Ex. A-13-Rental calculations, Exs. A-14 and A-15, proceedings of Randb Department fixing rent of Rs. 15,000/- per month, opined that the fixation of rent, by the Joint Collector cannot be accepted. In view of the very letter issued by the 1st plaintiff, seeking monthly rent of Rs. 13,000/- or the rent as fixed by the Randb Department "whichever is less", granted an amount of Rs. 13,000/- per month with interest at 6%, altogether Rs. 4,53,265/ -. ( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the said decision, the defendants preferred this appeal contending that the learned District Judge did not appreciate the facts of law in correct perspective. He could not have granted the rent at Rs. 13,000/- per month. The rent fixed by R and B Department @ Rs. 15,000/-per month was highly excessive, at any rate, when the Joint Collector has fixed the rent as per the guidelines, dated 24-2-1992, and it was binding on the department. The plaintiff had failed to prove miserably that the rent was Rs. 15,000/- per month. Therefore, the defendants prayed that the appeal be allowed setting aside the order of the trial Court. ( 9 ) THE point that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the rate of rent as fixed by the joint Collector or Randb Department ? ( 10 ) IT is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff is the owner of the godown situated at Ongole. It is also not in dispute that the defendants-Civil Supplies Department had taken the godown on lease for keeping rice and other commodities. At the time when the defendants entered into godown, no formal deed of agreement was executed. According to the 1st plaintiff, the District manager promised that rent would be a maximum of Rs. It is also not in dispute that the defendants-Civil Supplies Department had taken the godown on lease for keeping rice and other commodities. At the time when the defendants entered into godown, no formal deed of agreement was executed. According to the 1st plaintiff, the District manager promised that rent would be a maximum of Rs. 15,000/- per month, however, it would be subject to the rent fixed by R and B Department. On the premise that it would fetch a rent Rs. 15,000/- per month, he leased it out. ( 11 ) IT is also not in dispute that the defendants had occupied the godown on 5-10-1990 and vacated it on 31-8-1993. While the 1st plaintiff alleges that the district Manager had promised that the randb Department would fix the rent at rs. 15,000/- per month and accordingly they would pay the same, the defendants allege that they did not mention the rate of rent. They have informed that the rent would be fixed by Randb Department. ( 12 ) ADMITTEDLY, when the defendants have referred the matter to the Randb department, they fixed the rent at Rs. 15,234/-per month (vide page 16 of Exs. A-13 to a-15 ). The rental calculation was made by the Deputy Executive Engineer and Assistant executive Engineer, Randb Town Works, ongole, two years after the department had taken possession of the godown (Exs. A-13 to A-17 ). Curiously, the Joint Collector had rejected the fixation on the ground that it was excessive, without giving any basis as to where the Executive Engineer went wrong in fixing the rent and the authority under which he could negative it. His competency to over ride the fixation made by Executive Engineer is difficult to comprehend. The 1st plaintiff alleged that the godown belonging to Bellarn Kotaiah situated in the same locality fetched an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month. In fact, the same was fixed by Randb Department and the very same rate was paid by Civil supplies Department. Now it is contended that the godown was having an additional facilities, extra space etc. , it cannot be equated with the godown belonging to him. ( 13 ) THE defendants having taken godown on lease could have fixed the rent within a reasonable period. Now it is contended that the godown was having an additional facilities, extra space etc. , it cannot be equated with the godown belonging to him. ( 13 ) THE defendants having taken godown on lease could have fixed the rent within a reasonable period. Having agreed to abide by the decision of Randb department, and when Randb Department has fixed the rent, they ought to have paid the rent. There is no reason for not accepting the recommendation of Randb Department. Moreover, all these proceedings had been emanated long after they had vacated the premises. This was undoubtedly brought upto deny the claim of the plaintiff. ( 14 ) P. W. I, the 1st plaintiff, has sworn in oath and reiterated that at the time of entering into lease, the District Manager informed him that it would fetch a rent of rs. 15,000/- per month. On that he agreed to lease out the godown. Since the District manager informed him that the rent would be fixed by Randb Department, he gave all the documents necessary for the fixation of the rent. Subsequently, the rent was fixed by Randb Department which was not accepted by the Joint Collector. ( 15 ) D. W. I, the Assistant Manager, a. P. S. C. S. C. L. , deposed that at no point of time, the rent was fixed by the Corporation in the year 1993. The Joint Collector, prakasam District, being an Executive director of the Corporation, fixed the rent of godown at Rs. 5,000/- per month. However, in the cross-examination, he admitted that the A. P. S. C. S. C. L. took over charge from the earlier Corporation which entered into lease on 1-11-1991. He was not the person who entered into contract with the plaintiff. He himself admitted that:"i have no idea prior to 1-11-1991, on what basis the 4th defendant fixes the rent to the godowns, taken on lease. The godown of the plaintiff situated in a commercial locality. I do not know that the officials of the R and B, approached the plaintiff and gave assurance that they are going to fix the rent within in one year from the date of taking possession, as per the rules. "he pleaded ignorance as to the rent fixed by Randb Department. I do not know that the officials of the R and B, approached the plaintiff and gave assurance that they are going to fix the rent within in one year from the date of taking possession, as per the rules. "he pleaded ignorance as to the rent fixed by Randb Department. ( 16 ) WHEN the parties are admittedly agreeable for the rent fixed by the Randb department, they cannot turn round and say that it was not binding on them. ( 17 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants-defendants by relying United bank of India v. Ramdas Mahadeo prashad and others, (2004) 1 SCC 252 , contended that there is no consensus at the time when the contract was entered and therefore, there was no contract. I do not see how the said decision could be applied to the facts of this case. In the above case, on facts, it was held that when Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered, there was no consensus. The facts are besides the point. ( 18 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants-defendants also relied M. V. Shankar Bhat and another v. Claude pinto since (deceased) by LRs. and others, (2003) 4 SCC 86 , contending that when an agreement was subject to ratification of the terms and conditions thereof by the co-heirs who were not parties to it, is not conclusive of contract. That was a case where a sale agreement was entered subject to ratification. ( 19 ) COMING to the facts, both parties agreed that as per the rent fixed by the randb Department, the same shall be paid by the defendants to the 1st plaintiff. Accordingly, the Randb Department fixed the rent at Rs. 15,000/- per month. In fact, the said fixation binds both the plaintiff as well as the defendants. The defendants are estopped from retracting it by saying that it was not binding on it. ( 20 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants-defendants also relying Kalalabai jageshwar Joshi and others v. State of maharashtra and others, (1996) 1 SCC 669 , contended that there is no conclusive contract between the parties and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim Rs. 15,000/- per month. That was a case where the Engineer concerned referring the matter to the collector for acquisition and the appellant offered the lands at Rs. 4 per sq. yd. 15,000/- per month. That was a case where the Engineer concerned referring the matter to the collector for acquisition and the appellant offered the lands at Rs. 4 per sq. yd. In those circumstances, Their Lordships opined that there was no concluded agreement between the requisitioning authority and the appellant to purchase the lands @ Rs. 4/-per sq. yd. This decision is not equally applicable to the instant case. ( 21 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants-defendants contended that the respondents-plaintiffs could not establish that there was an agreement, wherein the lease was Rs. 15,000/- per month. When the plaintiffs could not establish the case, it is not for the defendants to prove the case. He stated that the plaintiffs ought to have examined either the Executive Engineer or the District Manager who entered into the contract with Bellam Kotaiah whose godown was also taken on lease. ( 22 ) IN A. Raghavamma and another v. A. Chenchamma and another, AIR 1964 sc 136 , Their Lordships considering Sections 101 to 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, opined that :"there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof : burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. " ( 23 ) IN fact, the plaintiffs by filing uncontroverted documents proved that the defendants had occupied the premises on lease agreeing to pay rent as fixed by Randb department. The burden, if any on the plaintiffs is discharged. It is unfortunate the defendants being manned by high ranked officers trying to evade payment of rents on specious grounds. When both parties lead evidence, I quite do not see how this concept of burden of proof comes in. ( 24 ) TO sum up, the defendants have occupied the godown of the plaintiffs and has utilized it for storage of rice etc. , from 5-10-1990 to 31-8-1993, for which they were liable to pay the rent. The Randb authorities, to whom both parties referred the matter for fixation of rent, fixed the rent at Rs. 15,000/- per month. The trial court solely on the ground that the very plaintiff offered the godown at Rs. , from 5-10-1990 to 31-8-1993, for which they were liable to pay the rent. The Randb authorities, to whom both parties referred the matter for fixation of rent, fixed the rent at Rs. 15,000/- per month. The trial court solely on the ground that the very plaintiff offered the godown at Rs. 13,000/-per month and in view of the clause wherein he was agreed to take the amount, fixed at Rs. 13,000/- per month (vide Ex. A-13 ). There were no cross-objections or appeal from the plaintiffs. In fact, the plaintiffs could have got Rs. 15,000/- per month as fixed by Randb Department. At any rate, the fixation of Rs. 13,000/- per month cannot be said to be high or unreasonable. I do not see any flaw in the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. I do not see any merits. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.