The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession of a tenant after the termination of tenancy, as defined under the Act, is lawful, and they are not liable to pay mesne profits.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 23rd July 1979 passed in Original Suit No. 628/1976 by the 6th additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City.

( 2 ) THE appellants are defendants 1 to 4 and respondent is the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE trial Court has decreed the suit for ejectment of the appellants/defendants and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5003. 50 and also for damages of Rs. 2,369/- per month from 14-10-1976 to the end of January 1978.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the suit the defendants/appellants handed over the possession of the suit schedule properties by depositing the key of the premises in the Court on 9-1 -1978 and the court after hearing both sides handed over the key of the premises on 2-2-1978 to the landlord. This appeal is only confined to that part of the decree by which the defendants have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5003. 50 for the period from 1-7-1976 to 13-10-1976 and damages of Rs. 2,369/- p. m. from 14-10-1976 to the end of January 1978.

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the premises in question was leased to the defendants under a registered lease deed dated 19-10-1971 - ex. P-1 effective from 1-9-1971 on a rent of Rs. 710/- p. m. According to the terms of the lease deed, the lease was initially for a period of five years and an option was given to the defendants to seek renewal of the lease for the next five years on a rent of Rs. 855/- p. m. and also for a further period of five years at the rate of Rs. 1026/- p. m. three months before the expiry of the period of five years.

( 6 ) BEFORE the expiry of the period of first five years, according to the case of the defendants they exercised the option by issuing notice dated 14-5-1976. The request made in the notice was not acceded to by the respondent/plaintiff. The defendants sent another request dated 29-7-1976 which was also not acceded to.

( 7 ) THE respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit on 14-10-1976 for recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties on the ground that the lease stood determined on the expiry of five years from 1 -9-1971. The plaintiff also prayed for recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 7107- p. m. from 1-7-1976 to 14-10-1976 and for damages at the rate of Rs. 2,369/~ p. m.

( 8 ) THOUGH the defendants filed the written statement resisting the suit but, as pointed out earlier, during the pendency of the suit they delivered the key of the suit schedule premises to the Court on 9-1-1978 and ultimately the key of the premises was handed over to the respondent/plaintiff by the Court by its order dated 2-2-1978. The defendants also submitted that as the possession had been handed over, the suit for recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 710/- p. m. from 1-7-1976 may be decreed. As the plaintiffs had claimed not only arrears of rent but also mesne profits at the rate of 2,369/- p. m. the Court was required to determine the claim made by the plaintiff. Therefore, the trial Court raised the following issues:"1. Does plaintiff prove that defendant is in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 1,450/-? 2. Is the plaintiff entitled to damages for the use and occupation at Rs. 2,369/- per month as claimed by him in para 6 of the plaint? 3. Is the plaintiff further entitled to damages for use and occupation at Rs. 2,369/- per month as claimed by him in para 6 of the plaint? 4. Is termination of tenancy valid? 5. Do the defendants prove that they are entitled for renewal of lease as stated in para 2 of the written statement? 6. Does the plaintiff prove that it is entitled for possession of the suit schedule property? 7. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?"

( 9 ) IT also recorded the findings on the aforesaid issues as follows:-"issue No. 1:- In the affirmative. Plaint has proved that the defendant is in arrears of rent to a tune of Rs. 1,450/ -. Issue No. 2:- In the affirmative. Plaintiff is entitled to damages for use and occupation to tune of Rs. 3,553. 50 ps. as claim