It's fun and it's not lacking.

Peace and blessings
Explained in the G.M. B.K. 20. A doubt regarding a person who benefits from his neighbor's house without his knowledge. In the event that he benefits and it is not lacking, is he obligated to pay? The G.M. does not cite any verse or source that states that a person who benefits from another's property is obligated. And yet it is satisfied. And apparently, what is the doubt? It is theft or theft of a daily wage in a yard that is not sustainable for collection. And therefore I was satisfied. Is this a doubt according to the Rabbi's explanation in the Torah of the Haspast? Is it not necessary to be satisfied? Is it logical that in a world like ours, where people ask for rent for renting a house, the law will exempt him because he did not violate any section of the Torah?
thanks