M. S. A. Siddiqui, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed this suit for defendant-bank s eviction from the basement, ground floor, first floor and the second floor of the building bearing No. B-26-27, Community Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit premises) and also for recovery of mesne profits @ Rs. 12. 00 per sq. ft. per month w. e. f. 1st February, 1990. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the plaintiff s case is that on 1st March, 1981, the suit premises were let out to the defendant-bank at a rent of Rs. 23,580. 00 per month. By the notice dated 10th January, 1990, the plaintiff terminated the defendant-bank s tenancy w. e. f. 31st January, 1990. Despite service of the said notice, the defendant-bank did not vacate the suit premises. Hence, this suit. ( 3 ) THIS suit has been resisted by the defendant-bank on various grounds. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? 2. Whether the suit does not disclose any cause of action? 3. Whether the court has no jurisdiction? 4. Whether the tenancy of the defendant has been validly terminated ? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession? ( 4 ) ON 15th April, 1998, learned counsel for the defendant-bank intimated the Court about defendant s willingness to vacate the suit premises provided reasonable time is granted for vacating the suit premises. Accordingly, time was granted to the defendant-bank to vacate the suit premises by 31st July, 1999. Pursuant to this direction, the defendant-bank filed an undertaking in the form of an affidavit to vacate the suit premises by 31st July, 1999. The undertaking filed by the defendant-bank is accepted. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the only dispute which now survives between the parties is with regard to the amount of mesne profits to be paid by the defendant-bank to the plaintiff and the issue No. 6 regarding payment of mesne profits be decided on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. In this view of the matter, issue Nos. 1,2,3,4 and 5 do not survive for determination. ( 5 ) IT is undisputed that the defendant s tenancy was terminated w. e. f. 31st January, 1990 and the total area of suit premises is 12544 sq. ft. In this view of the matter, issue Nos. 1,2,3,4 and 5 do not survive for determination. ( 5 ) IT is undisputed that the defendant s tenancy was terminated w. e. f. 31st January, 1990 and the total area of suit premises is 12544 sq. ft. The petitioner has claimed mesne profits @ Rs. 12. 00 per sq. ft. per month w. e. f. 1st February, 1990. The plaintiff has examined Chunni Lal (Public Witness 1) and Lalit Mohan Madhan (Public Witness 2) in support of his claim. Learned counsel for the defendant-bank contended that the rate of mesne profits, as claimed by the plaintiff, is highly excessive. It is also undisputed that Life Insurance Corporation of India is in occupation of the 3rd and 4th floors of the same building as the plaintiff s tenant. Chunni Lal (Public Witness 1) is an administrative officer of the Life Insurance Corporation and he testified that on 15th September, 1992, the aforesaid portion of the building was let out to the Life Insurance Corporation of India at a monthly rent of Rs. 39,000. 00 Lalit Mohan Madhan testified that at the time of institution of the suit, the prevailing market rate of rent for basement was Rs. 10. 00 per sq. ft. , for ground floor Rs. 14. 00 to Rs. 15. 00 per sq. ft. and for upper floor Rs. 12. 00 to 14. 00 per sq. ft. per month. He further testified that the average rent for commercial building in the area was about Rs. 30. 00 per sq. ft. per month. It is worth mentioning that evidence of both the witnesses on the said point has been left unchallenged by the defendant-bank. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to shake their credit on the aforesaid points. As against this the defendant-bank has examined Golak Chandra Mahapatra, (DW1), who testified that in the year 1990 the prevailing market rent of similar premises was ranging between Rs. 1. 50 p to Rs. 3. 50 p per sq. ft. No document has been proved by this witness to substantiate the said contention. In his cross-examination, he has not even denied the suggestion that in 1992, the prevailing market rent in the area was Rs. 10. 00 per sq. ft. per month. 1. 50 p to Rs. 3. 50 p per sq. ft. No document has been proved by this witness to substantiate the said contention. In his cross-examination, he has not even denied the suggestion that in 1992, the prevailing market rent in the area was Rs. 10. 00 per sq. ft. per month. In this view of the matter, no reliance can be placed on the bald statement of Golak Chandra Mahapatra (DW1) to prove the prevalent market rent of buildings let out for commercial purposes. Learned counsel for the defendant has invited my attention to various documents filed by him which are at pages 37 to 76 of the paper book to show that market rent of various buildings was between Rs. 7. 50. 00 per sq. ft. to Rs. 24. 00 per sq. ft. per month. It is pertinent to mention that the aforesaid documents are private documents and they have not been proved in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act. Consequently, these documents cannot be read in evidence. Eliminating these documents, there remains nothing on the record to show or suggest that the prevalent market rent of buildings in the area let out for commercial purposes was less than Rs. 12. 00 per sq. ft. per month. As noticed earlier, evidence of the plaintiff s witnesses Chunni Lal (Public Witness 1) and Lalit Mohan Madhan (Public Witness 2) has been left unchallenged by the defendant-bank on the point of the prevailing market rent of the building in question. There is no ground to disbelieve their testimony regarding their assessment of the prevalent market rate of rent of the building in question. On a consideration of the evidence of the said witnesses, I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, award of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 10. 00 per sq. ft. per moth would be just and reasonable. I, therefore, find and hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits from the defendant-bank @ Rs 10. 00 per sq. ft. per month from 1st February, 1990 till the date of delivery of possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. Any amount paid to the plaintiff by the defendant-bank towards use and occupation of the premises in question shall be adjusted against the amount of mesne profits awarded by this Court. 00 per sq. ft. per month from 1st February, 1990 till the date of delivery of possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. Any amount paid to the plaintiff by the defendant-bank towards use and occupation of the premises in question shall be adjusted against the amount of mesne profits awarded by this Court. ( 6 ) IT is, therefore, ordered and decreed that the defendant-bank shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff by 31st July, 1999. The defendant-bank shall pay to the plaintiff mesne profits @ Rs. 10. 00 per sq. ft. per month from 1st February, 1990 till delivery of the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall pay additional court fee on the said amount of the mesne profits. The defendant-bank shall pay costs of the plaintiff and bear its own. Any amount paid by the defendant-bank to the plaintiff towards use and occupation of the premises in question shall be adjusted against the amount of mesne profits awarded by this Court. A decree be drawn up accordingly. .