JUDGMENT : SATHISH NINAN, J. 1. The trial court decreed the suit for money and dismissed the counter claim. The defendant is the appellant. 2. The plaintiff is the owner of the 'A' schedule property with the building thereon. The property was leased out to M/s.Mahindra First Choice Service Ltd., who was conducting an automobile service unit therein. The lease with M/s.Mahindra First Choice was terminated as per Ext.A2 Deed of Surrender dated 09.05.2016. The defendant company is also engaged in the business of sales and services of vehicles. They intended to take the premises on lease. Simultaneously, they entered into an agreement with M/s.Mahindra First Choice for the purchase of the equipments and machinery in the building. Accordingly, in spite of surrender of the lease by M/s.Mahindra First Choice, the machinery was retained in the premises by the defendant. As between plaintiff and the defendant, the lease was to commence on 01.06.2016 and the agreed rent was Rs.2,50,000/- per month. Ext.A3 is the draft lease agreement prepared, which, however, was not executed and registered. The plaintiff alleges that, though the defendant was in possession of the premises and retained the machinery therein, he failed to pay rent. After repeated demands, an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid towards arrears of licence fee from 01.06.2016 till 30.11.2016. The suit is for recovery of the arrears of licence fee. 3. The defendant admitted the proposal for taking the property on lease and the arrangement with M/s.Mahindra First Choice and the retaining of the machineries in the building. The intended lease was for the purpose of conducting an automobile service centre. The plaintiff had represented to the defendant that the previous tenant M/s.Mahindra First Choice had been doing such business in the property with due licences. Believing such representation, the defendant agreed for the arrangement. However, the required statutory clearances could not be obtained from the authorities as the property in question is situated in a residential zone. It was also understood that M/s.Mahindra First Choice Services did not have any valid licence. It was also contended that, the possession of the property was not handed over to the defendant and hence, there is no liability to pay any rent. A counter claim was raised seeking return of Rs.15,00,000/- and further amounts towards loss of profit and value of electrical installation. 4. It was also contended that, the possession of the property was not handed over to the defendant and hence, there is no liability to pay any rent. A counter claim was raised seeking return of Rs.15,00,000/- and further amounts towards loss of profit and value of electrical installation. 4. The plaintiff filed a written statement to the counter claim, denying the allegations and averments. 5. The trial court held that the defendant was in possession of the property and was liable to pay the licence fee or damages for use and occupation from 01.12.2016 to 04.04.2018 on which date, pending the suit, the defendant had vacated the premises. The counter claim was dismissed. 6. The appeal is confined to the decree granted in the suit. There is no challenge against the dismissal of the counter claim. 7. The points that arise for determination are: (i) Does the evidence on record indicate that the defendant had taken possession of the premises? (ii) Without execution of an agreement, is the plaintiff entitled to realise any amounts from the defendant towards licence fee/damages for use and occupation, and the quantum if any? (iii) Does the decree and judgment of the trial court warrant any interference? 8. Though the defendant claimed that they are not in possession of the premises, the contention is apparently unsustainable. It is not in dispute that they had purchased the entire machineries of the previous tenant and the machineries were retained in the very premises. Admittedly, such arrangement was on an agreement with the plaintiff to take the premises on lease from 01.06.2016. The defendant had arranged a security personnel for the premises. So also, the defendant was paying electricity charges for the consumption at the premises from 01.06.2016 onwards. The Commissioner who visited the property, has reported in Ext.C1 report and also in her deposition as PW2 that, the key of the premises was with the defendant's security personnel. The above materials are sufficient enough to find that the defendant was in actual physical possession of the premises in question from 01.06.2016. 9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant would argue that though the materials would suggest that the defendant was in occupation of the premises, it was on the misrepresentation of the plaintiff that the earlier tenant, M/s.Mahindra First Choice, was running a service centre with due licence. 9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant would argue that though the materials would suggest that the defendant was in occupation of the premises, it was on the misrepresentation of the plaintiff that the earlier tenant, M/s.Mahindra First Choice, was running a service centre with due licence. In fact they did not have any licence. So also, the defendant was unable to obtain a licence from the statutory authorities since the premises in question is situated in a residential area. The plaintiff having misrepresented and caused the defendant to enter into an arrangement to take the premises on lease, and the purpose having failed, he is not entitled to claim any amounts towards rent or otherwise, it is argued. The learned senior counsel also argued that Ext.A3 being an unregistered lease deed, in the light of Section 49 of the Indian Registation Act, it could not be looked into to find out the terms of lease. 10. Except for the bald claim of the defendant that the plaintiff had represented to him that the earlier tenant was running a service centre with due licence, there is no evidence to substantiate the same. DW1, when cross-examined, admitted that the plaintiff did not tell him that M/s.Mahindra First Choice was running an automobile workshop with necessary licence and permits, and such information was only hearsay. 11. Though the defendant's claim is that they were unable to obtain licence and permit for running a service centre, DW1 admitted that they had not even applied before the authorities for such permission. Though the defendant has a contention that the plaintiff failed to provide the statutory licences, such contention is baseless since it is for the defendant to obtain the necessary licences for the conduct of his business. Exts.A4 and A5 are the building permit and occupancy certificate in respect of the building. They evidence that the building in question is a commercial building and occupancy is granted accordingly. DW4, the Health Inspector of the Municipality, deposed that there are so many service centres and workshops in the area in question. Therefore, the contention of the defendant that the premises was agreed to be taken on lease on the misrepresentation of the plaintiff and that the defendant was unable to obtain a licence and permits, etc., are devoid on any merits. 12. Therefore, the contention of the defendant that the premises was agreed to be taken on lease on the misrepresentation of the plaintiff and that the defendant was unable to obtain a licence and permits, etc., are devoid on any merits. 12. Even that apart, when the defendant proposed to take a premises on lease, it was for him to make necessary enquiries and satisfy himself that the premises is suitable for his business. The landlord cannot be found fault for tenant’s folly. 13. The defendant occupied the property in question from 01.06.2016 till 04.04.2018. On 04.04.2018, the premises was surrendered and the machineries were removed. It was during the pendency of the suit and under the supervision of the Advocate Commissioner. DW1 had admitted that, if the defendant had not occupied the premises, the plaintiff could have leased out it to others. Having occupied the premises, the defendant is necessarily liable to pay the licence fee or damages for use and occupation for the period of occupation. 14. With regard to the rate of licence fee, even in the written statement it is admitted that the defendant had agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.2,50,000/-. DW1 also admitted that if the premises was given on lease to third parties, it would have earned a monthly rent of Rs.2,50,000/-. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- per month is justified. 15. With regard to the argument based on Section 49 of the Registration Act, the said argument has no legs to stand. Ext.A3 is not even signed by the parties. The said document cannot be looked upon as the arrangement of lease nor as a lease deed. As could be noticed from the discussions supra, the terms of the arrangement are evident from the other materials on record. Hence, the argument has no force and consequence. 16. Admittedly, the defendant has paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the plaintiff. While the defendant claims that it is towards advance for making some renovation of building, there is no evidence that any renovation work was required or was done in the building. According to the plaintiff, such amount was paid towards arrears of licence fee. 16. Admittedly, the defendant has paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the plaintiff. While the defendant claims that it is towards advance for making some renovation of building, there is no evidence that any renovation work was required or was done in the building. According to the plaintiff, such amount was paid towards arrears of licence fee. At any rate, the said amount paid to the plaintiff is liable to be appropriated towards the arrears of licence fee from 01.06.2016 till 30.11.2016 at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per month. 17. On the above discussions we find that the trial court was right in having granted a decree for realisation of the monthly licence fee/damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per month from 01.12.2016 till 04.04.2018. The trial court has granted the interest at the rate of only 6% per annum, which is only reasonable. There is no merit in the appeal. We do not find any reason to disallow the costs to the defendant. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs.