Bhaskaran, J.

The defendants in O.S. No. 103 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sub-court, Ernakulam, are the appellants in the appeal. The basic facts stated in the plaint are as follows:

2. The plaintiff is a native of Meenachil Taluk. He was working as lecturer in St.Thomas College, Palai, from 1959 to 1961. In 1961, he went to Canada for higher studies. He took his master degree in Mathematics from the University of Toronto and took his Ph.D. He joined as Assistant Professor in Mathematics and Statistics in Mc Gill University, Montreal in Canada and now he is the senior most Professor in that University. The defendants 2 to 4 are the wife and children of the 1st defendant who was working as attender in St.Thomas College, Palai. The 2nd defendant is a distant relative of the plaintiff and defendant also belong to Meenachil Taluk. The plaintiff used to come to India every year and in 1985 he accepted the post of Director of Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Thiruvananthapuram, and from 1985 onwards he used to be in India for six months.

3. In 1981 the plaintiff purchased an extent of 13.413 cents of land in Edappally for constructing a residential building. After getting permission from the Corporation of Cochin, construction was started in 1984. He also purchased the adjacent land of 1.023 cents in 1985. After a difference of opinion with the contractor the plaintiff directly engaged workers and supplied the materials for such construction work.

4. The Ist defendant after his retirement was finding it difficult to make both ends meet and whenever the plaintiff used to meet his native place the defendant used to express his grievances and that he was residing in a rented house. The plaintiff thought of allowing the defendants to occupy a portion of the house constructed by the plaintiff with a view to help them and he wrote to them informing of his willingness and in 1986 they shifted their residence to a portion of the house constructed by the plaintiff. It was without-any remuneration till he demanded to vacate the same.

5. The defendants assured the plaintiff that they would find out some other alternative accommodation as and when the plaintiff wanted possession of the rooms they were allowed to occupy. As and when the plaintiff used to come to India he used to occupy the entire remaining portion of the building and take food with the defendants for which the plaintiff used to pay lavishly. The relationship with the plaintiff and defendants went on very cordial. In 1992, the marriage of the 3rd defendant took place with a Canadian Citizen. The entire expenses of the marriage were met by the plaintiff. However, from 1996 onwards there was a change in the attitude of the defendants and the plaintiff requested for surrendering possession of the rooms occupied by the defendants. After the change of the attitude, the defendants have declared that they will teach a lesson to the plaintiff and dig the plaintiff will not be permitted to live in the building. The plaintiff has been paying building tax, property tax, land tax and other charges. The plaintiff had executed a power-of-attorney in favour of the 4th defendant to enable him to look after the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff had a telephone connection in the house. He has also an Ambassador car bearing registration No.KL-7A 3136. The defendants have been using the same for their emergency purposes. The plaintiff used to give the necessary amounts for payment of property tax, water tax, electricity charges etc. The originals of the receipts are with the defendants. The plaintiff cancelled the power-of-attorney in favour of the 4th defendant on 13-2-2000. After permission to occupy the building is withdrawn, the defendants have no right to continue to occupy the premises. Since the permission is withdrawn the defendants are liable to give compensation for use and occupation for the portion of the building in their possession at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per mon