Judgment :- 1. The first respondent herein/Chikkaiyya Naicker College, as plaintiff filed Original Suit No.887 of 2002 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, as against the appellant herein and another for delivery of possession of the suit property after removing the superstructure put up thereon and for payment of Rs.1,80,000/-towards past damages for use and occupation of the suit schedule property and Rs.10,000/- per month towards future damages. 2. The first defendant/appellant herein resisted the suit by contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable as the Management of the plaintiff/College was already taken over by the Government vide G.O. Ms. No.489, dated 19.12.2000. It was the case of the first defendant that the Principal of the College had no authority to present the suit, for, the appropriate authority to file the suit is the Special Officer authorized by the Government. In respect of payment of damages, it was contended that when the lease deed was executed in the year 1995 in respect of 20000 sq. ft. land for a rent of Rs.500/-per month, it is not justifiable for the plaintiff/first respondent to ask for payment of Rs.10,000/- per month towards future damages and Rs.1,80,000/- towards past damages. 3. The trial court, by its judgment dated 09.01.2006, ultimately held that it being a case of landlord and tenant, and not based on title, right or interest between the plaintiff and the defendant, the suit filed by the College with the authorization of the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai, is tenable and sustainable in law. In respect of damages, by referring to the evidence of PW-3, who was working for more than 31 years in the same College as Lecturer and conversant with the location of the suit property, to the effect that the land would fetch a rent of 1.50 to 2 Rupee per square feet, and by observing that the evidence of PW-3 was not at all controverted by the defendants by producing evidence regarding the prevailing guideline or market value of the suit property, allowed the claim at the rate of Rs.5,000/-per month towards future damages for use and occupation from 1.12.2001 ie., the date of reply letter sent by defendants, till delivery of the suit property by removing the superstructure put up thereon. In respect of past damages, a direction was issued to the defendants to pay Rs.60,000/-. 4. In respect of past damages, a direction was issued to the defendants to pay Rs.60,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the first defendant preferred an Appeal in A.S. No.43 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Erode, and by Judgment dated 04.12.2006, the verdict of the trial court was confirmed; hence, the present appeal. 5. In the present matter, wherein, no question of law is framed yet, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the following questions of law have been framed for consideration, (a) Whether the suit, as on the date of filing, was maintainable inasmuch as the Government had already taken over the management of the College vide G.O. Ms. No.489, dated 19.12.2000 or, in other words, whether the suit filed by the Principal of the College without any authority from the Directorate of Collegiate Education is legally maintainable? (b) Whether the Courts below were right in fixing the damage at the rate of Rs.5,000/-per month as future damages for the leased-out land measuring to an extent of 20000 sq. ft. when there was no plausible evidence produced before the trial court to justify such exorbitant fixation? 6. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side, having regard to the substantial questions of law now formulated. 7. As regards the first question of law, it is seen that the trial court, in para No.12 of its Judgment, categorically found that the case was not based upon any title, interest or right between the plaintiff and the defendant, rather, it was a case of relationship of landlord and tenant and further, it was only with the authorization of the Directorate of Collegiate Education, the Principal/plaintiff initiated the suit on behalf of the College. That being the categorical finding of the trial court, rightly the lower appellate court declined to differ with the same and this Court also, does not desire to disturb the said finding as the same cannot be found fault with. 8. Coming to the second issue, it is seen that the trial court, by acting upon the evidence of PW-3, who was serving as Lecturer in the plaintiff-College for more than 31 years, to the effect that the area where the petrol bunk run by the first defendant was located would fetch a monthly rent of Rs.1.50 to Rs.2/- per sq. ft. viz., Rs.30,000/- for 20000 sq. ft. ft. viz., Rs.30,000/- for 20000 sq. ft. if applied @ Rs.1.50 per sq. ft. and Rs.40,000/- if applied @ Rs.2/- per sq. ft., and by observing that such evidence of PW-3 was not controverted by the first defendant/appellant herein, ultimately held the first respondent liable to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.5,000/-per month from 01.12.2006 till the date of delivery of possession. Though the trial court took much pains to arrive at the said sum, since the amount was fixed solely on the basis of the evidence of PW-3 not supported by any other strong material to justify fixation of a sum which is 10 times higher than the actual lease amount, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met and that the only remaining issue could be given a quietus by directing the plaintiff to pay the damages at the Rate of Rs.3,000/-per month, instead of Rs.5,000/- as fixed by the trial court and affirmed by the lower appellate court, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. As regards the judgment of the courts below in fixing Rs.60,000/-as past damages, this court deems it fit not to disturb the same as it seems to be just and proper. Learned counsel for the appellant pleads that the respite given for payment of future damages may be extended in respect of payment towards past damages also. By recording his undertaking in this regard, the appellant is permitted to pay both the sums within the time limit as stipulated by this Court without any reference to the Execution Court. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.