S.P. Garg, J.

1. Appellants in these four appeals are members of the same family who own different portions of property bearing No. 1822/1 and 1822/2 Chandni Chowk, Delhi 110006. All of them inducted State Bank of India as a tenant in the respective portion of the property owned by them.

2. Bhupendra Singh, the appellant in RFA(OS) 80/2011, had let out an area admeasuring 1820 sq.ft and 315.84 sq.ft. to the Bank. The last agreed rent with respect to the tenanted premises was Rs. 50,050/-per month. Said Appellant terminated the tenancy by a notice dated 12.8.1997 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The termination took effect from 5.9.1997. Appellants, Virendra Singh, Pushpa Singh and Rajendra Singh, who have filed RFA(OS) No. 79/2011, 81/2011 and 82/2011 respectively, had each let out an area admeasuring 427 sq.ft. to the Bank. The last agreed rent with respect to each of the leased premises was Rs. 5,647/-per month. Said Appellants terminated the respective tenancy by separate notices dated 7.10.1997 issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The termination took effect from 15.11.1997.

3. Appellant, Bhupendra Singh filed Applications in September 1998 under Section 19 of the Slum Area (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Slum Act") seeking permission to evict the respondent. Before the same could be decided the Bank vacated the leased premises in its possession on 02.09.1999 and thus the said application under the Slum Act became infructuous.

4. Appellant Bhupendra Singh filed CS(OS)No. 1911/2000 on the Original Side of this Court seeking recovery of Rs. 27,95,386/-as damages alleging that occupation by the Bank for the period 05.09.1997 till 02.09.1999 in respect of the portion let out by him was unauthorized. For the same period, the other three appellants filed three suits praying for damages in sum of Rs. 4,39,404/-on the same ground. Pendente lite and future interest was prayed to be awarded.

5. The following issues were settled in CS(OS)No. 1911/2000:

(1)

At what rate the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits in respect of premises referred in para 4 to 7 of the plaint?

(2)

Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest? if so, at what rate, on which amount and for which period?

(3)

Whether tenancy of defendant was validly terminated by the notices dated 12th August, 1997?

(4)

Whether suit as framed is not maintainable as alleged?

(5)

Relief?

6. In the other three suits similar issues as above were settled save and except the date of notice as per Issue No. 3 was changed to 7th October, 1997.

7. Vide a common judgment and decree dated May 5, 2011, the learned Single Judge decided Issue No. 3 in favour of the Appellants/Landlords and held that the notices validly terminated the tenancy.

8. But, answering Issue Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 together, the Ld. Single Judge has held that notwithstanding the fact that the tenancies were validly terminated, because the property was in a slum area and was governed by the Slum Act, the Respondent Bank continued to be in possession of the demised premises as a "tenant" since it enjoyed the protection under the Slum Act. The learned Single Judge has held that it would be a paradoxical situation that the Bank could not be evicted without permission from the competent authority under the Slum Act and yet would be liable to pay damages if the claim of the appellants was accepted. Consequently, all the four suits were dismissed.

9. Admittedly, each of the tenancies between the parties were with respect to rent payable by the Bank in excess of Rs. 3,500/-per month and thus the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 was not applicable to the premises in question.

10. It is settled law that a tenancy is the result of a contract between the owner of a property called the lessor and the lessee whereunder the lessor agrees that for an agreed rent the lessee shall enjoy the possession of the property. The relationship between the lessor and the lessee is governe