Possession-based liability for use and occupation damages upheld, and a party could not dispute computations founded on its own accounts.

Retention of possession of premises kept the appellants liable for rent or damages for use and occupation, even though the business had closed and the premises were not being used, because the liability continued until vacant possession was surrendered. The appellants also could not repudiate the quantum of damages and commission where the arbitrator had computed them on the basis of their own statement of accounts, accepted in the proceedings and acted upon for tax purposes, and no clear legal or factual error was shown. The award and concurrent findings were substantially affirmed, with only post-award interest modified.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellants were liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the premises during the period when the business remained closed but possession was not surrendered; (ii) whether the appellants could challenge the quantum of damages and commission computed on the basis of their own statement of accounts before the arbitrator.

Issue (i): whether the appellants were liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the premises during the period when the business remained closed but possession was not surrendered

Analysis: The dispute between the parties had arisen under the agreements and vacant possession was not handed over until much later. The arbitrator found, on the evidence, that the closure of business was not shown to be attributable to the respondents and that the appellants continued to retain possession. The High Court accepted the reasoning that, even on the appellants' own understanding that the arrangement was akin to tenancy, liability to pay rent or damages continued so long as possession was retained. The legal position applied was that retention of possession carries liability for rent or damages notwithstanding non-use of the premises.

Conclusion: The appellants were liable to pay damages for use and occupation, and this finding was upheld against the appellants.

Issue (ii): whether the appellants could challenge the quantum of damages and commission computed on the basis of their own statement of accounts before the arbitrator

Analysis: The arbitrator determined the amount by relying on the statement of accounts furnished by the appellants and accepted by the respondents without objection, including the basis for calculating commission and damages for the relevant closure and post-closure periods. The Court held that the appellants could not be permitted to resile from their own statement at a later stage, particularly when the computation had already been acted upon for tax purposes and the method of calculation had been accepted in the arbitral proceedings. No persuasive error or apparent mistake warranting interference was shown.

Conclusion: The challenge to the quantum of damages and commission failed, and the computation was sustained against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The award and the concurrent findings of the courts below were affirmed in substance, with only the post-award interest modified as granted by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A party retaining possession of premises remains liable for rent or damages for use and occupation, and it cannot later repudiate a computation founded on its own accepted statement of accounts absent a clear legal or factual error.

---