JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Rohit Roy, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the respondents-bank.

2. This first appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 23.01.2010 decree signed on 05.02.2010 passed by learned Sub Judge-II, Ranchi in Title (Eviction) Suit no. 07 of 2005 particularly in so far as it relates to the finding given on issues nos. VI & VII i.e. Entitlement of the Plaintiffs to Damages and Mesne profit for occupation of the suit property by the defendants beyond period of lease.

3. The appellants/plaintiffs are landlords of premises described in the schedule to the plaint. According the appellants/plaintiffs on the request of the respondents/defendants the appellants/plaintiffs let out the suit premises described in the schedule of the plaint to the defendants for a fixed period of five years commencing from 01.10.1998 and ending with 30.09.2003 both dates inclusive. The said terms of lease was recorded in a registered deed of lease dated 19.11.2001. The monthly rent of the premises was fixed at Rs. 17,276/- There were two sets of landlords one set of the landlords was the plaintiffs and another set of landlords was Daya Ram Budhia, Basudeo Budhia and Sawarmal Budhia. The second set of landlords also leased out their premises, which is adjacent to the premises in suit to the defendants. Lease of both the premises were given by virtue of the same deed of lease dated 19.11.2001. However two leases one by the plaintiffs and the second by another set of landlords were completely separate and distinct. The rent of the premises of the second set of landlords was Rs. 8,638/- per month. The second set of landlords have also filed a separate suit against the defendants for eviction. According to the appellants/plaintiffs even after expiry of the lease the respondents/defendants did not vacate the suit premises. The defendants/respondents approached the appellants/plaintiffs for a fresh lease, which was not accepted by the appellants/plaintiffs. In view of the above facts and pleadings the suit was instituted under the provisions of Section 11(1) of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982. On the above terms it was prayed in the suit that a decree be passed against the respondents/defendants for their eviction from the suit premises and respondents/defendants may be directed to quit and vacate the suit premises failing which the appellants/plaintiffs may be put in khas possession of the premises through the process of court by evicting the defendants. A decree for Rs. 48,65,000/-being the damages for use of occupation of the premises from 01.10.2003 to 01.10.2007 be passed. The cost of the suit was also awarded and Mesne profit @ Rs. 5000/- per day from 01.10.2007 till the defendants vacate the property in suit be passed.

4. The respondents/defendants had appeared and filed their written statement. In the written statement the respondents/defendants taken the ground that the suit is not maintainable. The suit is barred by principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence. The cause of action as mentioned in the plaint is concocted and for the purpose of the suit. The facts which are mentioned in the paras 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the plaint are admitted meaning thereby that the respondents/defendants have admitted that the appellants/plaintiffs are the landlords of the suit premises let out the defendants for a fixed period of five years commencing from 01.10.1998 and ending with 30.09.2003 both dates inclusive through registered lease deed dated 19.11.2001 on the terms inter alia of the lease for monthly rent of the premises of Rs. 17,276/- It was denied that there were two sets of landlord as because there is no physical demarcation of the building which will go to show that the buildings are separate and both the buildings are owned and possessed by two different sets of landlord. Secondly, if there are two separate landlords then there should have been two se