Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. These are cross appeals filed by Mr. Jay Kocchar and UCO Bank, who was a tenant in the suit property, against the judgment and decree dated 22nd January, 2015. Mr. Jay Kocchar was the Plaintiff (hereinafter, ‘Plaintiff’) in the subject suit, and UCO Bank was the Defendant (hereinafter, ‘UCO Bank’). The only question that survives in the present appeals is in respect of the mesne profits/damages payable by UCO Bank to the Plaintiff.

2. A suit for possession and mesne profits was filed by the Plaintiff in respect of property consisting of Ground Floor of property bearing No.27, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter ‘suit property’). According to the Plaintiff, a registered lease deed was entered into for a period of five years w.e.f. 1st May, 2003 to 30th April, 2008 at a monthly rent of Rs.48,000/-. The last paid rent at the time of termination of the tenancy was Rs.57,600/- per month. The lease deed was executed between Late Mr. Saran Singh Kocchar, who expired on 11th March, 2007. The Plaintiff is the son of Late Mr. Saran Singh Kocchar, and claims that as per the Will dated 3rd August, 2006 of his father, the premises had fallen in his share after the demise of his mother, in whose favour life interest qua the rent of the property was created, on 3rd September, 2008. The Plaintiff also pleaded that UCO Bank had attorned to the Plaintiff and had released the entire arrears of rent @ Rs.57,600/- per month. Since the Plaintiff did not wish to continue with the bank as a tenant, the tenancy was terminated by means of notice dated 1st October, 2009. The Plaintiff claimed Rs.3 lakhs per month as damages for user and occupation charges of the property. Reliefs prayed in the suit are as under:

“(i) pass a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, his agents, employees etc in respect in ground floor of property No.27, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi and as shown in the site plan.

(ii) pass a decree for future damages in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant from the date of institution of the present suit till possession is delivered to the plaintiff and @Rs.3 lacs per month or at such rate which this learned court decides and Under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C.

(iii) Interest @18% be also awarded on the future damages and under S.2(12) of C.P.C.”

3. UCO Bank filed its written statement claiming that there is no lease deed executed between the Plaintiff and the bank and that as per the registered lease deed, the tenancy is not terminable before the expiry of the period specified in the lease. UCO Bank claims that it was entitled to pay the enhanced rent with an increase of 20% which it has done and therefore it is entitled to remain in the suit property till 30th April, 2018. According to UCO Bank, as per the renewal clause, the monthly rent payable between 2008-13 would be Rs.57,600/- and from 1st May, 2013 to 30th April, 2018 it would be Rs.69,120/-. It is the case of UCO Bank that immediately upon the demise of the landlord- Sh. Saran Singh Kocchar on 11th March, 2007, as per his Will, Smt. Manmohan Kaur Kocchar, his wife, became the owner. A letter dated 21st March, 2007 was addressed by Smt. Manmohan Kaur to UCO Bank that she had become the landlady of the suit. Simultaneously, the Plaintiff- her son also wrote a letter on 31st March, 2007 requesting the bank not to pay the rent to his mother. Thus, there were disputes between the family.

4. In the meantime, according to UCO Bank, vide letter dated 26th March, 2008, UCO Bank had expressed its clear intention to renew the lease for a further period of five years i.e. from 1st May, 2008 to 30th April, 2013. The said letter having been served upon the owner i.e. the Widow of the landlord, UCO Bank had acted as per clause 4(f) of the lease deed between the bank and the late father of the Plaintiff. Since, there were disputes between the wife and son of the landlord, UCO Bank credited the monthly rental amount under