The other person for whom the act was done should have enjoyed the benefit of the act.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\nDoing an act of delivering something to another person<\/strong>
When any person does an act non-gratuitously for another, he is entitled to claim compensation. In the case of Indu Mehta v. the State of U.P., Miss Indu Mehta was a practicing advocate at the District Court of Kanpur. She was appointed as an Asst. District Government Council, whereof she provided her services. After some time it was found out that her appointment violated Section 24(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Her appointment was held to be void but since the State had enjoyed the benefit of her services, the government could not recover back the fees already paid for the services.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe act done must be positive<\/strong>
If the plaintiff has done nothing positive but abstains from doing something, it is not sufficient for him to claim anything under Section 70. In the case Kirorilal v. the State of M.P., an incompetent mining engineer executed a lease in favor of the plaintiff, which was invalid because of non-compliance with a section of the constitution. A huge quantity of sand was required for a joint project between the states of Rajasthan and M.P. The plaintiff was refused to remove the sand and brought a suit against both the states to recover compensation as he was deprived of the sand. The plaintiff\u2019s claim was unsuccessful as he had not done anything positive to confer any benefit.<\/p>\n\n\n\nUnjust benefit of the defendant at the cost of another.<\/strong>
It is a necessary condition for the application of Section 70. In the case C.I. Abraham v. K.A. Cheriyan, X collected rent on behalf of Y, who resided abroad and deposited in Y\u2019s account but often delayed in making the deposits. Thereafter X demanded remuneration for the services provided. It was held that the services so provided was could not be proved that they were provided non-gratuitously.<\/p>\n\n\n\nApplication of Section 70 against the Government<\/strong>
If the services provided and result in unjust enrichment of the government or some organization, the government can still be made liable to compensate. In the case State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal and Sons, the plaintiff constructed certain structures at the request of government officers i.e. State of West Bengal. The plaintiff demanded payment for the same which was refused by the government on the ground that the contract was invalid. It was held that since the government did receive a benefit at the expense of the plaintiff, therefore they were liable to pay for the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n