JUDGMENT R.N. Gurtu, J. - The (acts which give rise to this second appeal are as follows; 2. The deceased Appellant, who was Defendant No. 1 in the suit, was the owner and zamindar of some land in Khatauli town. The Appellant granted a lease to Ram Gopal, 'Respondent No. 3 in this appeal, which was to expire on 31st July 1948. Shortly before the expiry of the term of the lease in favour of Ram Gopal, the Appellant granted another lease of the same property in favour of Respondents 1 and 2 on 29th July 1947. On that very date, the Respondents paid Rs. 1,800/ - in advance as the first year's rent. Ram Gopal was in possession of some of the land and the rest of it was in possession of several sub tenants of Ram Gopal. After the period of Ram Gopal's lease expired, Respondents 1 and 2 asked for possession of the land. Neither Ram Gopal, nor his sub tenants handed over possession. Thereupon, Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 sent a registered notice to the Mukhtar-e-am of the Appellant requesting him to arrange for delivery of possession to them. Possession was, however, not delivered and so Respondents 1 and 2 brought the suit claiming to recover the sum of Rs. 1,800/ - which they had paid to the Appellant as the rent for one year in advance and a sum of Rs. 100/ - spent by them in getting the lease executed and registered. Respondents 1 and 2 had also claimed possession but they gave up that plea. That is why they had impleaded Ram Gopal. 3. The Appellant contested the suit on the ground that he had not undertaken to deliver possession to the Plaintiff-Respondents and that they could claim possession and sue Ram Gopal for the same. It was further pleaded that they could not claim a refund of the rent paid by them, nor were they entitled to a refund of the amount spent over the execution and registration of the lease. 4. The learned Munsif decreed the suit for Rs. 1900/ - as against the Appellant holding that he was responsible under the law to put the lessees in possession of the leased premises. 5. 4. The learned Munsif decreed the suit for Rs. 1900/ - as against the Appellant holding that he was responsible under the law to put the lessees in possession of the leased premises. 5. Upon appeal, the lower appellate court has held that there was a statutory liability on the lessor to put the lessees in possession of the immovable properties leased out to them and that there was no express covenant exempting the lessor from that statutory liability, In the view of the lower appellate court, the Appellant having failed to deliver possession to the lessees when requested to do so, he committed a breach of contract and the Plaintiff-Respondents became entitled to claim Rs. 1,800/ -, the advance rent and also the amount spent by them over execution and registration of the lease, as damages, The appeal was, accordingly, dismissed. 6. Defendant No. 1 has preferred this second appeal and it is argued that the only remedy which the Respondent lessees had was to sue for possession and that they could not claim a refund of Rs. 1800/ - rent and Rs. 100/ - expenses incurred by them over the execution and registration of the lease by way of damages. 7. There can be no doubt that it was the statutory duty of the lessor to put the lessees into possession and that upon failure of the lessor to put the lessees into possession, it was open to the lessees to repudiate the contract. See Hanumantha Goundan and Others Vs. T.V. Doraiswami Pillai and Others, AIR 1928 Mad 380 . and AIR 1928 328 (Nagpur) . In the latter case, it was indicated that the Transfer of Property Act and the Contract Act have to be read together, and under Part I, Section 65, Contract Act, the lessee can rescind the contract. It being open to the lessees to repudiate the contract on the ground that the lessor had committed a breach of its terms, it would follow that the lessees were entitled to claim damages. 8. It was held in Mt. Razia Begum v. Muhammad Daud AIR 1926 Pat. 508, that: - A lessee or sub-lessee could maintain an action against the lessee for mesne profits as damages for keeping the lessee out of possession. 9. 8. It was held in Mt. Razia Begum v. Muhammad Daud AIR 1926 Pat. 508, that: - A lessee or sub-lessee could maintain an action against the lessee for mesne profits as damages for keeping the lessee out of possession. 9. In that case, the suit was for possession and also for mesne profits in respect of the period of the term of the lease during which possession had been denied. 10. If a lessor is liable for mesne profits even when a lease is not repudiated by the lessee, there seems no reason why a lessee to whom the lessor has failed to give possession should not be entitled to repudiate the lease and to claim damaged consequent. 11. In Tayawa v. Gurshidappa and Ors. ILR 25 Bom. 269, the facts were than A held land under a lease granted by B for eleven years. B had no title to the land which really belonged to C. In 1895, C. Dispossessed A. It was held that A was entitled to recover compensation from B. The basis of the decision was that when interruption is caused by the paramount owner of the property and not by a stranger, the lessor is bound to remove the interruption, and if he fails to do so, he must indemnify the lessee. In that case, the covenant for quiet enjoyment had been broken and hence it was held that damages could be claimed. 12. In Nagardas Saudhagya Das v. Ahmad Khan ILR 21 Bom.175, it was held that a purchaser who was evicted from his holding, was entitled to recover from the vendor, who had guaranteed his title, the value of the land at the date of the eviction. It was further held that though in ordinary cases a mortgages when deprived of his security can only recover his mortgage money as damages for breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment, yet where the mortgage deed contains a covenant on the part of the mortgages not to pay off the mortgage for a term of years, the mortgagee is entitled to damages for being deprived of a favourable and long enduring investment. 13. 13. In my view, there is no difference in principle between a case where the quiet enjoyment of a vendee or mortgagee has been disturbed by a person claiming a title paramount and a case where the lessor has failed to deliver the leased property to the lessee. In either case, there is a breach of covenant. A party upon a breach of covenant may either repudiate a contract and claim damages or he may keep the contract alive and still claim the consequent mesne profits by way of damages. In this case, the filling of the suit for a refund of Rs. 1900/ - must be taken the amount to a repudiation of the contract. The repudiation was due to the con fulfillment of the statutory obligation of the Appellant. Therefore, the right to claim damages came into existence, Rs. 1800/ - had been paid in advance and Rs. (sic)00/ - had been further expended by the lessees. The measure of damage in this case, therefore, would be, at least the amount paid by way of advance and expended. This is what the Respondents had claimed and this is what has been rightly decreed to them. See also Ibid Ullah Khan v. Ram Charan Sah AIR 1919 Oud 134. 14. In my view, the judgment appealed against is correct and there is no force in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. Leave to appeal to a division bench is granted,