The liability of a tenant at will is limited to voluntary waste, and the landlord must accept surrender for the lease to terminate. The obligation of a tenant at will is only to ensure that his own conduct does not contribute to the deterioration of the tenanted premises.

1. The first defendant in a suit for recovery of possession with arrears of rent is the appellant in this appeal. The plaintiff sought to recover 3 items of properties, which, according to him had been entrusted to the defendants under an oral arrangement entered into on 17th September, 1955 whereunder Rs. 162/-was agreed to be payable as rent, Rs. 100/- being rent of item 1 and Rs. 62/- being rent of items 2 and 3 and whereunder the defendants also agreed to surrender the property on demand. The plaint mentions default of payment of rent and the plaintiff seeks a decree for rent for the period from 17101958. For rent upto 17101958 a decree had already been obtained. This was in O. S.73 of 1958 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Palghat. In that suit the first defendant had denied the rental arrangement but it had been found. The plaintiff claimed in the present suit, in the alternative, a decree for damages for use and occupation of the plaintiff's premises. There is also an allegation in the plaint that due to want of proper care and timely maintenance one of the buildings had fallen into ruins, and had practically collapsed. On this account the claim is made for damages to the extent of 30,000/-. A notice was issued to the first defendant on 317 1961, Ext.B7 whereupon the first defendant in his reply disowned any liability for payment of rent as he disclaimed to be in possession.

2. According to the first defendant he was not liable either, for payment of rent or for damages. He admitted that he was conducting a match factory in the plaint item No.1 but, according to him, the premises were taken on rent from the plaintiff by the second defendant. He would say that on account of his relationship with the second defendant having become strained he had to stop the functioning of the factory from February 1968. He further alleged that on 17 51968 he went to the factory premises and entrusted to the plaintiff the entire machinery belonging to him under a list and the plaintiff is said to have taken over the premises to his possession on that date and continued in possession ever since so that the first defendant cannot be made liable either for rent after that date or for damages. It is said that the plaintiff allowed the second defendant to remove the machinery entrusted to the plaintiff's care and the suit itself was filed in collusion with the second defendant with whom the first defendant had fallen out.

3. Necessarily, therefore, the questions that the court had to decide on these pleadings of the parties were, whether the 1st defendant was liable to answer for the rent and if so, what was the period for which be was so liable and secondly, the liability of the first defendant to answer for damages for the loss of the building. The court below did not accept the case of the first defendant that the property had been surrendered by him on 17th May 1958. But, all the same, the court found that he had taken up an attitude ever since the earlier suit that he was not in possession and possession was with the plaintiff himself and while so, the building fell down and therefore at any rate, there was no question of the first defendant being made liable for the rent after the date the building collapsed. Since there was no evidence as to the date on which the building fell down the date of Ext. B7 notice by the plaintiff in which this was mentioned was taken to be the date and consequently, liability for rent was found to extend up to that date. On the question of damages, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree but that should be limited to what was found by the commissioner, as the amount required for restoring the building to its original condition. That sum was Rs. 12,050/-. The decree was limited to this sum.

4. By this appeal the first defendant complains against the decree for rent for the period subsequent to 17th May 1958. He also complains against the decree for damages awarded against him.