Fourth defendant in O.S.268/1998 on the file of III Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode is the appellant. First respondent was the plaintiff and other respondents other defendants in the suit. First respondent admittedly obtained the right to run the canteen from the appellant agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.1555/- on 25.9.1987. An advance of three months rent was paid. The period of the rental arrangement was one year. Subsequently it was admittedly extended for two years. When first respondent did not surrender the building on the expiry of the period, appellant demanded rent at the rate of Rs.2500/- and initiated steps to evict him by recourse to the provisions of Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968. Though first respondent instituted O.S.453/1990 seeking a decree for injunction from eviction and an ex parte order of injunction was granted, it was vacated on 5.2.1992 when the suit was dismissed. Though first respondent filed A.S.35/1992 he could not succeed in getting an interim order. Appellant with the help of police obtained possession of the property on 29.9.1992 after preparing the list of materials and taking custody of plaint B schedule movables belonging to him. According to the first respondent, plaint B schedule materials valued at Rs.78,280/ was taken by the appellant at the time of taking possession of the canteen. Later appellant issued a notice demanding Rs.90,243.25 being the damages for unlawful occupation without even adjusting the value of the articles taken from the canteen. First respondent instituted the suit seeking a decree for declaration that he is not liable to pay Rs.90,243.25 as demanded and the notice is invalid and a decree for injunction restraining the appellant from realizing the amount. Appellant resisted the suit contending that the suit is not maintainable under section 72 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and the lease granted in favour of the first respondent to run the canteen expired on 24.4.1990 and he was therefore in unlawful occupation of the building subsequent to 24.4.1990 and therefore he is liable to pay damages with interest at 16.5% per annum. Before the termination of the lease period appellant invited quotations for running canteen at the industrial estate for a period of two yeas from 25.9.1990 to 24.9.1992. Mr. Moideen quoted Rs.3285/- per month, which was the highest and it was accepted. By obtaining an order of temporary injunction from the court first respondent continued his unlawful occupation and therefore appellant was prevented from getting Rs.3,285/- per month. Hence the first respondent is liable to pay the damages demanded in the notice. It was also contended that the value of the goods taken possession from the canteen would be below Rs.10,000/- and they were sold in public auction and received Rs.14,086.60 and it is adjusted towards the arrears of rent and interest and for the balance revenue recovery proceedings is initiated. It is in accordance with law and therefore the suit is to be dismissed.

2. Learned sub Judge on the evidence found that suit is not barred under section 72 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Though appellant contended that the suit is barred under section 15 of Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), it was found that the suit is not barred under section 15. Learned Sub Judge also found that though Section 8 enables the appellant to claim damages for unlawful occupation, as provided under sub section (3) of Section 8, it can only be after issuing notice in writing and as there was no such notice, appellant is not entitled to demand the amount claimed in Ext.A4 and therefore Ext.A4 notice is illegal. The defendants were restrained from proceeding with revenue recovery proceedings, for realization of the amount claimed under Ext.A4 without proper order as provided under Section 8 of the Act. Appellant challenged the judgment