Sabina, J.

1. Plaintiff Suresh Kumar filed a suit for possession by way of eviction and for recovery of mesne profits, which was decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2007. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 25.8.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the legal representatives of the defendant (since deceased).

2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 to 4 of its judgment, are as under :-

"2. The plaintiff-respondent filed suit for possession of the disputed property measuring 3 kanals 1 marla as detailed in para no. 3 of the plaint with further relief of recovery of Rs. 10,000/- as mesne profits for the period of 10.8.1999 to 9.10.1999 and further mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month from the date of filing of the suit till delivery of vacant possession."

3. The case of the plaintiff-respondent, in brief, is that he purchased land measuring 3 kanals 1 marla, as described in para no.1 of the plaint, from Umrao Singh for a consideration of Rs. 25,500/- vide registered sale deed dated 7.8.1984. On the basis of the sale deed, mutation bearing no.3094 was sanctioned in his favour on 14.9.19085, by carving out Titamma in respect of the land bearing Rect. & Killa No. 56/12/1 (3-1). The said land was leased out to the defendant for a period of fifteen years commencing from 10.8.1984. On the strength of the lease deed, mutation no. 3121 was sanctioned in favour of the defendant. The land was leased out to the defendant for installation of a petrol pump and the lease money was fixed Rs. 3600/- per annum payable at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. Monthly tenancy commenced from 10th of each calendar month and expired on 9th day of the following calendar month. It has further been averred that there had been litigation between the parties regarding recovery of lease money, for rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership firm constituted by the parties. The defendant had been taking inconsistent pleas with regard to the status of the plaintiff as partner in the partnership firm and with regard to the recovery of lease money from the defendant on the strength of the lease deed. In various judgments, the defendant has been held to be a tenant during the period of lease. The defendant also admitted his possession as tenant under the plaintiff. The defendant raised plea that an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was borrowed by him from the plaintiff and interest at the rate of 10 per cent i.e. Rs. 300/- per month was to be paid on that amount. In civil suit No. 291 of 24.8.1987, the plea raised by the defendant was not accepted by the Court. The appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed on 4.5.1990. The plaintiff further filed a civil suit No. 722 of 1990 on 27.8.1990 for recovery of lease money of Rs. 10,800/- for the period of 10.8.1987 to 9.8.1990 and that suit was also decreed with costs in his favour on 21.1.1994. The appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed on 16.2.1997. The plaintiff further filed suit No. 423 of 1993 for recovery of lease money of Rs. 10,800/- for the period of 10.8.1990 to 9.8.1993, which was decreed on 27.1.1998. Civil suits for recovery of lease money for the period of 10.8.1993 to 9.8.1996 and 10.8.1996 to 9.8.1999 were also pending adjudication. It has further been submitted that the tenancy of the defendant was for a fixed period, which ended on 9.8.1999. After expiry of the fixed term, the tenancy of the defendant stood automatically determined. Thus, the possession of the defendant after efflux of time of tenancy originally fixed in the registered lease-deed dated 10.8.1984 is illegal and unauthorised, but he failed to hand over possession of the disputed property to the plaintiff in spite of repeated requests. Ultimately, a notice was got served by the plaintiff upon the defendant to hand over the v