JUDGMENT : The defendants in a suit for recovery of money, are the appellants. The claim is under the head 'arrears of rent'. 2. The first floor of the plaint schedule building was taken on rent by the defendants for a monthly rent of Rs.1,694/-with effect from 1.10.1992. The ground floor was occupied by a third party. By the end of the year 1995, the ground floor of the building fell vacant and as desired by the defendants, the same was let out to them for housing the 'Consumer Disputes Redressel Forum'. It appears that the rate of rent payable for the ground floor was not fixed at that time, though discussions were on. The suit is filed for recovery of arrears of rent for the period from 15.1.1996 upto 1.11.2006 at the rate of Rs.3.50 per sq. ft. The court below has granted a decree, fixing the rate of rent at Rs.3.30 per sq. ft. The same is under challenge by the defendants. 3. It is not in dispute that the defendants have been occupying the ground floor of the building in question during the period in respect of which the claim for rent is made by the plaintiff. While it may be true that the rent payable was not fixed at the time of letting out the premises to the defendants, the fact remains that they have been in occupation of the same during the relevant period. As noticed by the court below there is no case that the entrustment was gratuitous. Even assuming that there was no rental arrangement as such between the parties, the defendants are bound to pay damages for use and occupation for the said period. Admittedly, for the first floor of the building which has been taken on rent by the defendants from the plaintiff, the rate of rent agreed to between the parties is Rs.2.25 per sq. ft. The ground floor of the said building has the same plinth area as that of the first floor. The court below has fixed the quantum payable at 50% over Rs.2.25 per sq.ft. The ground floor of a building will definitely fetch much higher rent than the first floor unless there are some circumstances which reduce the utility. No such case it put forward. Hence I hold that the rent fixed by the court below is only just and appropriate. The ground floor of a building will definitely fetch much higher rent than the first floor unless there are some circumstances which reduce the utility. No such case it put forward. Hence I hold that the rent fixed by the court below is only just and appropriate. I do not find any reason to interfere with the rate fixed by the court below. 4. The appellant contends that the plaint claim is barredby limitation. The claim being one for arrears of rent, the right to sue arises as and when the rent falls due; only the claim for rent which falls within the period of three years from the date of filing of the suit is sustainable, is the contention. It is to be noticed that the Government is the appellant. That amounts are due to the plaintiff is not in dispute. Should the Government raise such a plea of limitation to defeat the rightful claim of a citizen especially on the facts as noticed supra? It is not that a plea of limitation is not available for the Government. But such pleas to destroy the rightful claims of citizens are to be seldom urged unless the very claim is unfounded. The Apex Court has on more than one occasion cautioned the urging of such technical pleas by Government and its authorities. In The Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International by its Proprietor V. Venkatadri (dead) by L.Rs. ( AIR 1979 SC 1144 ) the claim was for refund of amount of wharf age, demurrage and transit charges. It was defended raising the plea of limitation. The Apex Court observed thus: “The plea of limitation based on this section is one which the court always looks upon with disfavour and it is unfortunate that a public authority like the Port Trust should, in all morality and justice, take up such a plea to defeat a just claim of the citizen. It is high time that governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. It is high time that governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is well-founded, it has to be upheld by the Court, but what we feel is that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a government or a public authority, unless of course the claim is not well founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable.” The following observations of the Apex Court in Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Union of India (AIR 1974SC 130) is of significance: “It must be remembered that the State is no ordinarily party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook; for the State's interest is to meet honest claims vindicate a substantial defence and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an un fair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity. The State is a virtuous litigant and looks with unconcern on immoral forensic successes so that if on the merits the case is weak, government shows a willingness to settle the dispute regardless of prestige and other lesser motivations which move private parties to fight in Court.” In the case at hand, after having occupied and enjoyed the premises for the relevant period, it is not for the Government to raise a plea that they are not bound to pay the rent or damages for the use and occupation on the ground that the claim is barred by limitation. 5. That apart, in the instant case, as is evident from Exts.A2 and A3 Government Orders, since the date of induction of the defendants in occupation of the ground floor, negotiations were going on between the parties regarding the rate of rent. As it appears from Ext.A3 Government Order, the rent of Rs.648/-per month was suggested by the Government based on PWD rates which was not acceptable to the plaintiff. As it appears from Ext.A3 Government Order, the rent of Rs.648/-per month was suggested by the Government based on PWD rates which was not acceptable to the plaintiff. The matter was being deliberated upon between the parties and finally on the failure to reach at a consensus, the suit was necessitated. The liability to pay the rent is admitted by the defendants, as is evident from Exts.A2 and A3. It cannot be said that the claim is barred by limitation. Thus, the said plea is liable to be negatived. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs.