IMPORTANT POINT
Mere protection/benefit given by provision does give arise to any vested right.

U.V. Bakre, J.—This is plaintiff’s appeal from Judgment, Order and Decree dated 28/11/2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Panaji Goa (trial Court, for short) in Special Civil Suit No. 46/96/B.

2. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the said suit.

3. The Plaintiff had filed the said suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises and for mesne profits calculated at the rate of Rs. 41,610.24/- per month w.e.f. 1/11/1995 until the defendant hands over effective possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff and along with interest on the said amount calculated at the rate of 18% per annum.

4. Case of the plaintiff, in short, is as follows:

The plaintiff is owner of part of the second floor of the premises at Diamond Chambers, 18th June Road, Panaji-Goa admeasuring about 2600 square feet (suit premises). The construction of the suit premises was completed in the first week of November 1984 and occupancy certificate was granted on 11/12/1984. Therefore, when the suit was filed, the suit premises were not covered under the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1969 (Rent Control Act, for short). By letters dated 29/4/1984 and 9/11/1984, the plaintiff had made an offer to the defendant for creation of lease in respect of the suit premises. By letter dated 22/1/1985, the defendant, inter alia, wrote to the plaintiff through its Divisional Manager, referring to the said letter, that the defendant’s Head Office had approved creation of the said lease in respect of the suit premises, on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 12,015/- and that the lease was to be for 5 + 5 years with escalation in rent at the rate of 20%. The defendant was tenant of the suit premises w.e.f. 1/2/1985. At the time of lease, the defendant effected payment of Rs. 36,045. Though the defendant continued to occupy the suit premises for a period of 5 years with rent of Rs. 12,015/- per month, and subsequently on paying the rent of Rs. 14,418/- per month for a period from 1/2/1990 to 31/1/1995, no written instrument and/or registered lease was executed. The plaintiff considered the defendant as a month to month tenant. By letter dated 5/1/1995, the plaintiff informed the defendant that the lease was coming to an end by 31/1/1995. Due to inadvertence, in the said letter, the plaintiff wrote “2nd February, 1995” instead of “31/1/1995”. The defendant was also informed, vide the said letter, to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises and in case the defendant desired to continue, it should pay lease rent at the prevailing rate fixed by the Government agencies which was Rs. 12/- per square feet. By letter dated 12/7/1995, the Divisional Manager of the defendant informed the plaintiff that the competent authority of the defendant has sanctioned enhancement of rent for the suit premises @ 20% for another 5 years. Thus, the rent would stand raised to Rs. 17,302/-and the defendant, accordingly, remitted the rent for the months from February to June 1995 by deducting therefrom 20% Income Tax deducted at source, as per the Income Tax Rules. The plaintiff accepted the cheque, but did not acknowledge receipt of the letter. Thereafter, by notice dated 19/9/1995, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant w.e.f. 31/10/1995 and called upon the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises on 1/11/1995 but the defendant continued to remit the amount by cheques, which the plaintiff returned along with covering letter dated 9/1/1996 informing the defendant that he was returning the said cheques because the defendant was illegally occupying the suit premises and there was no question of plaintiff accepting the said cheques. The plaintiff is entitled to be put in possession of the suit premises and also to mesne profits at the rate of Rs.15.58/- per square feet towards illegal occupation of the suit premises