Paresh Upadhyay, J.

1. Challenge in this Second Appeal is made to the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court below i.e. the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jamnagar, at Khambhalia in Regular Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2010, dated 20-7-2013, by which the common judgment and decree passed by the trial Court i.e. the Principal Civil Judge, Dwarka, in Regular Civil Suit No. 41 of 2003 and Regular Civil Suit No. 61 of 2002, dated 4-8-2010, is confirmed. The trial Court has, inter alia, directed the present appellant to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the owner - the present respondents. The relevant facts, as emerging from record, are as under:

1.1. The present respondents are the legal heirs of one Shantilal Vallabhdas Jogia, who was the owner of the suit property, which is a self-contained residential premises in a compound, consisting of two rooms, kitchen, toilet, bathroom, varandah, borewell etc. The said property is situated at Gayatrinagar, Village-Arambhada, Taluka-Dwarka, District-Jamnagar.

1.2. The said owner had, by a written agreement dated 29-7-2002 (Exh. 34), permitted the present appellant to use the said premises, for a period of eleven months with effect from 1-8-2002, against payment of Rs. 800/- per month. The said agreement, inter alia contained conditions to the effect, that the said agreement was for eleven months only, and further that even before expiry of eleven months, the owner would be free to ask for possession of the said premises, by giving one month notice. It was categorically provided in the said agreement, that on expiry of the period of eleven months, the present appellant would handover peaceful vacant possession of the said premises, to its owner.

1.3. Pursuant to the above agreement, the present appellant had entered in the suit premises on 1-8-2002. There is no dispute with regard to the existence, contents or the binding force of the said document (Exh. 34). There is no renewal of the said agreement either.

1.4. During the currency of those eleven months, the owner wanted back the possession of the said property, and in consonance with the stipulation of the said agreement, the owner issued notice to the appellant on 23-8-2002. As per the said notice, on expiry of one month from that day i.e. by 23-9-2002, possession was required to be handed over by the present appellant to the owner. However, in September, 2002 itself, the present appellant moved the Civil Court by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 61 of 2002 praying that, he be not evicted from the suit premises except in accordance with due process of law. On application Exh. 5, protection was granted by the trial Court. Suit remained pending.

1.5. Thus, the owner of the property could not get back the possession of the suit premises, pursuant to the notice dated 23-8-2002, principally on the ground that, in September, 2002, the lease period of eleven months had not expired, and the present appellant had right to occupy the suit premises to its full term of eleven months. The said agreement outlived its life of eleven months on 30-6-2003.

1.6. In above circumstances, the Regular Civil Suit No. 61 of 2002 filed by the present appellant, in effect, got decreed without any adjudication, because of its very pendency till 30-6-2003. The appellant-occupier should have handed over the possession of the suit premises at least on 1-7-2003, which he did not do. The appellant had not even paid for last three months, of total eleven months.

1.7. In these circumstances, the owner - the present respondent moved the Civil Court by instituting Regular Civil Suit No. 41 of 2003 for getting possession of the suit premises. Since the appellant had not even paid for last three months, out of total eleven months, the owner also claimed the said amount in the suit. It is also claimed that, he be compensated by mesne profit until the present appellan