JUDGMENT :

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

1. Present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for modification of the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.

2. Appellants filed a suit for a decree for possession by ejectment of the respondents from office premises as per site plan located on G.T. Road, Tehsil and District Ambala, and for recovery of Rs.37,000/- on account of mesne profits for use and occupation charges from 01.12.1982 to 31.12.1985 (the date 31.12.1985 has been wrongly mentioned instead of 30.11.1982). Plaintiff averred that he is the owner of the premises, which was leased out to the defendants-respondents for a period of five years at a monthly lease of Rs.400/-. The lease deed provided for an extension. Lease period expired and a protracted correspondence ensued between the parties, but the parties could not agree at the increase in lease amount. Plaintiffs served a notice dated 16.12.1988 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and instituted a suit described above. Upon being served, respondents resisted the suit by filing a written statement. Besides taking various preliminary objections, it was stated that plaintiff is demanding exorbitant rent, which is not acceptable as the plaintiff has not provided facilities for the bank employees. A plea was taken that payment of rent is being sent monthly, which is not being accepted and a part of the claim raised by the plaintiff is time barred. Plaintiff filed a replication and trial Court framed issues on which both the parties led evidence. During the pendency of the suit before the trial Court, defendants vacated the building on 25.02.1988. After contest, suit was decreed by the trial Court by judgment dated 15.12.1990. Trial Court found that a part of the claim raised by the appellant was time barred as it was beyond a period of three years and one month of the filing of the suit. Suit was decreed for recovery of Rs.14,400/- with proportionate cost. Plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, for modification of the decree of the trial Court, which was partly accepted. First Appellate Court granted interest @ 18% per annum on the decreetal amount from the date of the decree, till its realization. Dissatisfied, appellant has approached this Court by way of this appeal.

3. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant is entitled to interest on the decreetal amount from the date of filing of the suit, which has been erroneously declined by the First Appellate Court. By relying upon Order 20 Rule XII, of Civil Procedure Code, it has been urged that appellant is entitled to mesne profits and interest from 01.01.1986 till the time the respondents handed over the vacant possession of the property i.e. 28.02.1988.

4. Opposing him, counsel for the respondents has made a reference to the plaint to contend that appellant did not seek relief of future mesne profits or interest thereof. He contends that in the absence of a specific prayer, claim for future mesne profits cannot be accepted.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their submissions, besides examining the requisitioned record.

6. The admitted position is that the appellant is the owner of the suit premises which was leased out to the respondents for a period of five years from 01.12.1982 to 30.11.1985. A lease deed was entered into between the parties and the monthly lease was fixed at Rs.400/-. Lease deed did contain a stipulation regarding the extension, but it was never extended. By notice dated 16.12.1985, appellant sought eviction of the respondents and also called upon them to pay arrears of mesne profits along with interest. Appellant filed the suit for possession on 28.02.1986. During pendency of the suit, respondents vacated the premises on 25.02.1988. Trial Court found the appellant to be entitled to arrears of rent from 01.01.1983 to 31.12.1985 but did not pass any decree for mesne profit