The main legal point established in the judgment is the taxability of income from rent and mesne profit when it is in dispute and yet to be determined.

( 1 ) THE substantial questions of law which have been raised and are required to be answered in this appeal are:

(I) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that damages or any part thereof for illegal occupation of the premises accrued to the appellant though the claim therefor was yet to be adjudicated finally and was pending disposal before The Hon ble High Court? (ii) Whether The Tribunal is right in law in holding that The amount received by the appellant under interim order of The Hon ble High court dated 6-1-93 relevant to assessment year 1993-94 is taxable on month to month basis in assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 as relatable thereto?

( 2 ) FACTS the appeal is for assessment year 1990-91 and The fust question for assessment year 1991-92 rotates around a single issue Briefly stated the facts of the case on the issue are:

THE assessee entered into lease agreement on 26/11/1979 with m/s Arya Dharma Seva Sangh, for the lease of the 1st floor premises, Flat No. H-72, connaught Circus, New Delhi together with right of entrance passage and other easements of the said premises for 114 months at a rent of Rs. 1,000. 00 per month. This lease deed was renewable at the desire of the tenant. The assessee entered into sublease vide lease deed dated 18-8-81 with the Traders Bank. The Traders Bank regularly paid the rent till 1988 at the rate of Rs, 24, 201. 75 p. p. m. On nationalization, The Bank of baroda took over The possession of the premises from Traders Bank. On 15-6-89 this sub-lease expired. Since the Bank of Baroda, after taking over from traders bank failed to pay the rent to the assessed, the assessee vide its letter dated 11-1-89 terminated The tenancy agreement with effect from 31-1-89 on the ground of non-payment of rent. After 11-1-89 the assessee received a letter from The Bank dated 6-1-89 along with a cheque dated 19/12/1988 for Rs. 96,807. 00 representing The rent for the months of July to october 1988. The assessee vide its letter dated 13-1-89 returned the cheque clarifying that tenancy was terminated vide its letter dated 11-1-89 Though the assessee terminated the tenancy agreement and returned some of the cheques received towards rent, rental income was shown in The return of income for the assessment year 1989-90 and for three months i. e. from 1-4-89 to 30-6-89 in its return of income for the assessment year 1990- 91. The Assessing Officer while framing assessment for the Assessment Year 1990-91 under section 143 (3) called upon the assessee to explain as to why The rent for the period after 30-6-89 was not offered for taxation. It was explained on behalf of the assessee that the tenancy was valid till 30-6-89 and thereafter the assessee was not entited to receive rent. It was also explained that The assessee had filed legal suit against The Bank for vacation of The premises. As the right to receive the rent was in dispute, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the same could not be brought to tax. Before The Assessing officer the assessee relied on the decision of the apex court in The case of CIT vs. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust reported in (1986) 161 ITR 224 (SC ). The Assessing Officer deputed the inspector who reported that The Bank was regularly paying rent to The assessee company. The Assessing Officer Thereafter included in The total income the rent of 12 months at The rate of Rs. 24. 201. 75p. per month instead of three months as shown by the assessee for the assessment year 1990-91, and for 12 months for the assessment year 1991-92. The decision of The Assessing Officer was confirmed by the learned CIT (A) for both The assessment years.

( 3 ) SHRI M. S. Syali, the learned counsel for The assessee vehemently urged that the revenue authorities had erred in including the rent for 9 months and 12 months respectively in assessee s income for assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the assessee was f