REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.05.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby and whereunder a decree for the possession of premises on the second floor of C-31/32, Connaught Place, New Delhi was granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and damages/mesne profits awarded to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.25/-per sq. ft. per month, that is, Rs.68,500/-per month, with effect from 01.09.1990 till the delivery of vacant possession of the premises in question.

2. The challenge in the appeal is confined to the quantum of mesne profits awarded by the trial court on the ground that the trial court failed to take notice of the steep rise in the market rates from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of the decree. The entire approach of the learned trial court in granting damages at the same rate, for the period from 01.09.1990 till 15.05.1999, and for the subsequent period till the delivery of possession, is stated to be on the face of it erroneous. The appellant contends that the learned trial court after finding and holding that the mesne profits in respect of the suit premises as on 01.09.1991 could be granted to the appellant at Rs.25/-per sq. ft., erred in law and on the facts of the case in not enhancing and increasing the same for the subsequent period/years, which period was spread over nearly a decade.

3. The essential facts are not in dispute, being that the respondent Bank was a tenant of the appellant on the second floor of the premises bearing No.C-31/32, Connaught Place, New Delhi, having a total covered area of 2,740 sq. ft. The tenancy was for a period of five years, initially with effect from 01.09.1980 with one renewal option for five years on 10% enhanced rent. The initial rent was fixed at Rs.9.50 per sq. ft. and the total rent per month was paid at the rate of Rs.26,030/- per month with effect from 01.09.1980 to 31.08.1985. The defendant exercised the option to renew the tenancy for a further period of five years vide its letter dated 16.08.1985, and hence the lease was extended for a further period of five years upto 31.08.1990 at a monthly rent of Rs.28,633/-. The lease stood terminated by efflux of time on 31.08.1990.

4. The appellant also terminated the lease by serving a registered A.D. Notice on the respondent dated 08.08.1990, whereby the tenancy was terminated with effect from the midnight of 31.08.1990. The appellant then filed a suit on 13.09.1990 for recovery of possession and mesne profits on the ground that after the termination of the tenancy the respondent had no right to occupy the premises. He was in unauthorised occupation. The appellant claimed damages/mesne profits at the rate of Rs.82,200/-per month, being the prevailing market rate of rent per month, i.e., Rs.30/-per sq. ft. for use and occupation of the premises with effect from 01.09.1990.

5. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties and the law, held the plaintiff entitled to recover the damages for use and occupation of the premises at the prevailing market rate. The plaintiff was awarded damages at the rate of Rs.25/-per sq. ft. per month with effect from 01.10.1990 till the delivery of vacant possession of the premises in question to the appellant, i.e., till 20th December, 2000.

6. Aggrieved by the quantum of damages awarded to him, the appellant has preferred the present appeal on the ground that the trial court failed to take note of the fact that the suit was instituted on 13.09.1990 and kept pending for almost a decade, i.e., till 15.05.1999, during which period the rate of rent had escalated significantly. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contended that the grant of damages at the same rate for the period from the filing of the suit till the passing of the decree and thereafter till the delivery of possession is contrary to the well settled princip