VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. I must begin this judgment with a preface. Certain tenants, in this country, consider it an inherent right not to vacate the premises even after either expiry of tenancy period by efflux of time or after their tenancy is terminated by means of a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. All such tenants, including the present appellant-bank, feel that they ought to vacate the tenanted premises only when the Courts pass a decree for possession against them. Considering the facts of the case, it is high time that a strict message is sent to those tenants who illegally continue to occupy the tenanted premises by raising frivolous defences only and only to continue in possession of the tenanted premises. Such incorrigible tenants should be appropriately burdened with penal costs, and which aspect of costs, I will deal with later noting the recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Ramrameshwari Devi and Others v. Nirmala Devi and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 249 in which it has been held that it is high time that actual and realistic costs be imposed in order to pre-empt and prevent dishonesty in litigation.

2. With this preface,