Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The Delhi Karnataka Sangh (hereinafter 'Plaintiff') had entered into a lease with Canara Bank (hereinafter 'Defendant') for property ad-measuring 5715.78 Sq. ft. at Sector 12, Rao Tula Ram Marg, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022. The initial lease dated 1st November, 1989 was for a period of five years with a renewal clause at enhanced rent of 35%. The initial five years expired on 31st July, 1993 and the renewed lease expired on 31st July, 1998. The last paid rent was Rs.60,750/- apart from electricity, water charges, property tax, etc., payable by the Defendant. After the tenancy expired on 31st July, 1998, the Defendant continued to occupy the property. It is the Plaintiff’s case that despite repeated requests, the Defendant did not vacate the property. Finally, the tenancy was terminated by the Plaintiff by issuing notice dated 24th/31st January, 2000. The same was delivered to the Defendant on 5th February, 2000.

2. The Plaintiff then filed the subject suit for possession as also for mesne profits pendente lite and future. The suit was filed on 1st March, 2000. The mesne profits claimed in the suit was at Rs.100/sq. ft. w.e.f. 1st March, 2000.

3. In the written statement, it was claimed that the notice of termination should be deemed to be waived in view of the acceptance of the admitted rent. The relationship of landlord-tenant was however not disputed. An application under Order XII Rule 6 was filed by the Plaintiff which was decided by a Learned Single Judge of this court on 5th August 2002. A decree of possession on the basis of admission was passed to the following effect :

“A decree of possession of premises Property No.1, Sector 12, Rao Tula Ram Marg, R.K. Puram, New Delhi in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant is passed. Since the defendant is a commercial institution it is given three months time to vacate the premises and deliver its possession to the plaintiff provided it files an undertaking within two weeks to that effect. The defendant shall appear before the Joint Registrar of the court for filing undertaking on 26.8.2002.”

The order was carried in appeal and was disposed of by a Division Bench of this court vide order dated 17th September, 2002 in the following terms :

“Heard.

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appeal will not be pressed provided time is allowed to the appellant to vacate the premises in question by 31st May, 2003 on acceptance of the appellants undertaking which will be filed within a period of two weeks from today on the affidavit of a person duly authorised to swear such affidavit on behalf of the appellant agreeing an undertaking to deliver peaceful and vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31st May, 2003. It is also stated that in so far as the mesne profits are concerned the matter is yet to be decided by learned Single Judge and the defendant/appellant undertakes to pay the mesne profits as will be finally determined by the Court and in the meantime, till delivery of possession the defendant/appellant will continue to pay use and occupation charges at the same rate.”

4. Though the Defendant was given time to retain possession till 31st May, 2003, it handed over possession to the Plaintiff on 31st March, 2003.

5. Thus, the only question that remained to be adjudicated in the suit, was in respect of mesne profits. The Plaintiff led the evidence of Sh. S. Krishna Bhatt, PW-1 and Sh. N.K. Dutta PW-2, an officer from Bank of India. The Defendant led the evidence of Sh. M. Jayasheelan DW-1, Chief Manager of Canara Bank.

6. The Trial Court after examining the pleading and evidence passed a decree for mesne profits in the following terms :

“14. In this case the defendant was given time to vacate the premises within three months from 5.8.2000 the date of order of eviction. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim mesne profit exceeding Rs. 81000/- p.m. upto 5th November 2002. The premises were vacated on 31.3.2