A. K. Sikri ( 1 ) THIS Appeal is preferred by the appellant (defendant in the Suit) against judgment and decree dated 29/03/2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No. 1201 of 1996. The learned Single judge has decreed the Suit of the plaintiff-respondent herein for Rs. 1,43,78,659. 89 alongwith cost as well as interest @ 18% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of decree till its realisation. Plaintiff had filed the Suit. in May 1996 for ejectment and recovery of Rs. 13,37,928. 00 towards mesne profit s and for determination and grant of future mesne profits. Since the appellant had surrendered the possession of the suit property to the respondent on 7/1/1999, the question which remained to be determined was regarding mesne profits alone. ( 2 ) THE Suit property is plot no. 3, EFGH Block, local shopping Centre, Masjid Moth, New Delhi. It comprises of ground floor and the basements immediately below the same with total super area of 4432 sq. ft. The respondent, who is the owner and landlord of the property in question, had let out the Suit property to the appellant vide Lease Deed dated 9/5/1985. This lease was for a period of three years effective from 1 5/05/1985 upto 14/05/1988,. After the expiry of the period mentioned in the Lease Deed no fresh lease was executed. The appellant however continued in possession by paying rent every month. The. respondent terminated the tenancy, which according to it had become month to month tenancy, by serving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) and called upon the respondent to handover vacant possession of the demised premises. As the appellant did not vacate the premises pursuant to the demand contained in the notice, respondent filed the aforesaid Suit for ejectment and mesne profits. As observed above, possession of the demise property was handed back to the respondents on 7/1/1999. Accordingly, the learned single judge proceeded to decide the question of mesne profits. Evidence was led by way of affidevits. on the basis of material placed on record learned single judge concluded that the respondaent was entitled to mesne profits @ Rs. 125. 00 per Sq. ft. for the period of 34 months i. e. w. e. f. 1/03/1996 to 7/01/1999. The appellant had given security deposit for Rs. 14,40,000. 00. Evidence was led by way of affidevits. on the basis of material placed on record learned single judge concluded that the respondaent was entitled to mesne profits @ Rs. 125. 00 per Sq. ft. for the period of 34 months i. e. w. e. f. 1/03/1996 to 7/01/1999. The appellant had given security deposit for Rs. 14,40,000. 00. Tje impugned judgment directs the adjustment of this amount from the mesne profits payable alongwith interest thereon @ 17% per annuam w. e. f. 7/01/1999. There is also a direction for subctractinb the rental paid upto 31/05/1998. Making the calculations in the aforesaid manner the decree for Rs. 1,43,659. 89 has been passed by giving the following details:- ( 3 ) ALTHOUGH in the Memorandum of appeal, the impugned Judgment and decree is assailed on various grounds, the only ground pressed at the time of arguments was that the rate of Rs. 125. 00 per sq. ft. per month fixed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement was exorbitant and did not commensurate with the market rent. According to learned counsel appearing for the appellant the rental in the last two years had declined. It was also argued that the appellant, after vacating the demised premises had taken another premise on rent in the same vicinity at a much lower rate. It was also submitted that the premises in question consisted of basements as well as ground floor and the learned Single Judge ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the basement of the premises cannot be compared with the ground floor of the same premises and fixing of mesne profits @ rs. 125. 00 per sq. ft. for ground floor as well as basement was not permissible. It was further submitted that learned Single Judge had relied upon the rent relating to the properties at Bhikaji Commercial complex which was not of any relevance as Bhikaji Cama place was a commercial centre at Ring Road with special location for commercial operation and could not be equated with the Suit property. ( 4 ) BEFORE we deal with the aforesaid submissions, it would be appropriate to reproduce here the relevant portion of the impugned judgment which would reflect the reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge for fixing mesne profits @ rs. 125. 00 per sq. ft. ( 4 ) BEFORE we deal with the aforesaid submissions, it would be appropriate to reproduce here the relevant portion of the impugned judgment which would reflect the reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge for fixing mesne profits @ rs. 125. 00 per sq. ft. "it is contended by the Plaintiff that the market rent would be Rs. 150. 00 per sq. ft. per month, and that the Plaintiff had confined its claim of Rs. 125. 00 per sq. Ft. per month. To buttress this claim the Plaintiff has filed four Lease deeds along with its affidavit by way of evidence dated 22/1/1999. The rentals in these Lease Deeds ranges from approximately Rs. 95. 00 to Rs. 150. 00 per sq. ft. Keeping the surroundings, location and environs in mind (the other occupants in the area where the demised premises are located being highly reputed concerns ). I am of the view that the area is comparable to any other part of delhi. In the legal regime presently prevailing holding over by tenants, by exploiting the endemic delays of litigation, needs to be discouraged and deprecated. Despite being put to notice that the Plaintiff would be claiming damages/mesne profits at the rate of rs. 125. 00 per Sq. ft. , the Defendant chose not to vacate the premises but to fight the present litigation. On the strength of the decision cited by the Plaintiff, if the Court comes to the conclusion that this rate of Rs. 125. 00 per sq. ft. per month is not unreasonable and approximately corresponds to the prevailing rentals, it would be just and proper to grant mesne profits at this very rate. In its affidavit dated 16/7/1998 the Defendant had produced lease Deeds of premises located in greater Kailash I Market and in Greater kailash-II. lf there was such an appreciable difference between the rent claimed by the Plaintiff in respect of the suit premises and rentals of available space in comparable areas, the defendant would have shifted out of the suit property. Having failed to do so, the Defendant cannot be heard to complain on this score today and must be deemed to have profited by this very measure. The defendant has further controverted the applicability of the Lease Deed relied upon by the Plaintiff on various grounds. Having failed to do so, the Defendant cannot be heard to complain on this score today and must be deemed to have profited by this very measure. The defendant has further controverted the applicability of the Lease Deed relied upon by the Plaintiff on various grounds. As regards location I have already held that the suit property was comparable to the best. They certainly can be favourably compared to those in Greater kailash, Green Park, Masjid Moth and bhikaji Cama Place. xx xx xx xx the Defendant has also assailed the plaintiff s comparison on the basis of the four Lease Deeds filed by it, on the grounds that a part of the demised premises constitutes the Basement. This contention is not of great significance since the location of the premises in question are such that the Basement has considerable utility. It is easily accessible, being at the corner of the building and is immediately below the other portion of the demised premises. Even if the rental of the premises in bhikaji Cama Place is not taken into consideration the average or mesne of rentals is approximately Rs. 125. 00 per sq. ft. The most significant and irrefutable evidence produced by the Plaintiff, which in my view clinches the issue and annihilates the stand of the Defendant, is the leasing of the suit premises to m/s. Sam Exports (Pvt.) Ltd. at a rental of Rs. 5,00,000. 00 per month for a period of three years with six months rent as Security deposit. The area let out is 2,216 sq. ft. on the ground floor, 2,216 sq. ft. basement and 750 sq. ft. mezzaine. This computes to an average of rs. 96. 5 per sq. ft. per month. It must be borne in mind that the rentals in delhi have been falling drastically in the last two years. A rental of Rs. 96. 5 per sq. ft. in 1999 is therefore certainly equitable to Rs. 125. 00 per sq. ft. in 1996. ( 5 ) THE portion of the judgment extracted above answers almost all the. contentions raised by the appellant before us. we agree with the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge from which following deductions can be made ;- 1. The lease deeds produced by the respondent show the rentals from approximately Rs. 90. 00-150. 00 per sq. ft. 2. contentions raised by the appellant before us. we agree with the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge from which following deductions can be made ;- 1. The lease deeds produced by the respondent show the rentals from approximately Rs. 90. 00-150. 00 per sq. ft. 2. Keeping the surroundings, locations and environs in mind the lease deed of this property was comparable to any other part in Delhi. 3. Keeping in view the location of the premises, even the basement has considerable utility which was easily accessible. 4. Even if rentals of the premises in Bhikaji cama Place is not taken into consideration the average or mesne of rentals is approximately Rs. 125. 00 per sq. ft. 5. The Suit premises itself, after this were vacated by the appellant, were rented out in the year 1999 at an average rate of Rs. 96. 50 per sq. ft. per month (taking into consideration the area of ground floor as well as basement ). Since rental in the year 1996 were more than in the year 1999, a rental of rs. 96. 50 per sq. ft. in 1999 would be comparable to rs. 125. 00 per sq. ft. in the year 1996. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant could not shake the aforesaid reasoning by any legal or tenable argument. Merely because the appellant has now taken the premises 6 Rs. 70. 00 per sq. ft. per mensem is not relevant. This point is also dealt with by the learned single Judge in great detail and in right perspective. we may add that the question to be determined is about the fixing of mesne profits of the demised property and not where. the appellant has shifted now. As far as demised property is concerned, the respondent has been able to let out the same even in the year 1999 @ rs. 96. 50 per sq. ft. It is this aspect which would be relevant for fixation of the standard rent and the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that rental of Rs. 96. 50. 00 per sq. ft. in the year 1999 would be comparable to Rs. 125. 00 per sq. ft. in the year 1996 i. e. the period in question for which mesne profits were to be fixed. 96. 50. 00 per sq. ft. in the year 1999 would be comparable to Rs. 125. 00 per sq. ft. in the year 1996 i. e. the period in question for which mesne profits were to be fixed. Therefore, we do not find any error in the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge while fixing the mesne profits of the Suit property @ rs. 125. 00 per sq. ft. per month. ( 7 ) IN normal course, therefore, we would have maintained the judgment and decree. However, we may point out at this stage that during the pendency of this Appeal there were some talks of compromise between the parties though they remained unfructified. During the said talks, respondents had offered to accept rs. 100. 00 per sq. ft. per month, when the compromise talks failed and the arguments were heard, the learned counsel for the respondent maintained that respondent was still ready to accept Rs. 100. 00 per sq. ft. per month as mesne profits for the Suit property. Pursuaded by this consideration alone, we modify the decree for mesne profits and fix the same @ Rs. 100. 00 per sq. ft. per month, with this the appellant cannot have any grievance of any nature whatsoever inasmuch as almost at this rate the same premises are let out even year 1999 and respondent is getting the rental at this rate even today. Further, the learned, Single Judge has granted interest only from the date of decree which we are maintaining. ( 8 ) AS per the amended decree, the amount to which the respondent-plaintiff would be entitled, is as under:- ( 9 ) THE plaintiff-respondent would be entitled to cost in the Suit as well as in this Appeal. It would also be entitled to interest @ Rs. 18. 00 per annum on the decretal amount from the date of decree i. e. 29/3/2000 till its realisation. The plaintiff-respondent is directed to deposit the necessary court fee, now payable as per the amended-decree, within 30 days and decree be dr. awn up there after. This Appeal stands disposed of.