S.70 of the Contract Act prevents unjust enrichment and allows for compensation when one party voluntarily accepts the benefit of work done by another party.

1. This appeal by the plaintiff in O. S.280 of 1974 in the court of the 1st Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam for recovery of arrears of rent with interest, is against that part of the judgment decreeing the cross-claim of the defendant-respondent.

2. Facts relevant for consideration of the issue involved in the appeal are few and they are as shown hereunder. The plaint schedule building belongs to the plaintiff-Dharmasthapanam. The defendant, the tenant of the building since 5th July 1954, is conducting his hotel business by name "Cochin Refreshment House" in the said building. While so, the defendant-respondent started paying rent at an enhanced of Rs. 300/-from 1957 onwards. In December 1972, the defendant-respondent without obtaining the consent of the plaintiff, commenced certain unauthorised works on the building and it resulted in the plaintiff-appellant filing the suit, O. S.982 of 1972 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam for an injunction restraining the respondent from carrying on the said works. The temporary injunction obtained by the plaintiff-appellant on 8-12-1972 was served on the defendant on the same day. It was at this stage Mr. P. K. Kunjalu, Advocate, Ernakulam and Mr. P. A. Sulaiman, Proprietor, Swiss Time House, Ernakulam at the intance of the respondent defendant, settled the dispute and as per the settlement the the defendant-respondent agreed to enhance the rent by Rs. 100/-. The Tent thus fixed, at Rs. 400/-per month was agreed to be paid with effect from 1-1-1973. The defendant respondent had also agreed to execute a rent deed, Pursuant to this agreement, the plaintiff did not press the injunction suit and accordingly the suit was dismissed.

3. The defendant-respondent has been paying rent at Rs. 400/-till and inclusive of 4-8-1973. Thereafter the rent was in arrears. The suit is for recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 400/-for 16 months from 4-8-1973 till 4-12-1974 with interest at 6 percent per annum. The total amount thus claimed in the suit comes to Rs. 6, 400/-with interest accrued, Rs. 240/-.

4. Shorn of the unnecessary details, the case put forward by the defendant is this: It was with the consent of the Managing Trustee of the plaintiff trust, the defendant made the improvements and modifications on the building at a cost of Rs. 26250/-. The understanding then was that the plaintiff would reimburse the above cost to the defendant. Instead of doing that, the plaintiff filed O. S.982 of 1972 in the Munsiff's Court for an injunction restraining the defendant from carrying on the improvement/ modification work on the building. It was at this juncture the mediators intervened and the defendant agreed to pay rent at Rs. 400/- per mensem. It had further been agreed between the parties that the improvements made to the building will form part of the trust property. Accordingly the injunction suit was not pressed. It is further submitted that the accounts were given to the Managing Trustee. The Managing Trustee expressed his inability to pay the entire amount. He suggested that the defendant could adjust one-half of the rent every month towards the amount of Rs. 26250/-until it is fully paid up. The defendant agreed for it. Although the accounts were settled in June 1973, rent up to August 1973 was paid at Rs. 400/-per mensem, awaiting the execution of the agreement as per the settlement. In the circumstances, the defendant need pay rent only at Rs. 200/-per mensem, from July 1973 until the sum of Rs. 26250/-is wiped off.

5. The defendant subsequently amended the written statement and laid foundation for the cross-claim. The amended pleadings read thus:

"In addition to the defence of the agreement to reimburse Rs. 26250/-set out above, this defendant alternatively claims the said amount from the plaintiff and born out by accounts with 6 percent interest per annum from the date of decree till realisation. The plaintiff is liable to pay the same and defendant is entitled to re