SWATANTER KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent and mesne profits/damages for the use and occupation of the ground floor of premises no. G-22, NDSE, Part-I, New Delhi. This suit of the plaintiff was decreed against the Punjab National Bank by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and decree dated 11. 7. 2006. Feeling aggrieved, the bank has filed the present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 of the Code of civil Procedure (for short 'cpc' ). ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the respondents they had leased the premises the aforestated premises having a carpet area measuring about 1326. 15 square feet to the appellant in terms of a duly registered Lease Deed dated 17. 8. 1989 for a period of 3 years commencing from the date of execution of the Lease Deed with one option for renewal for a further period of 3 years on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- per square feet. The lessor vide letter dated 14. 8. 1997 had notified the lessee that the lease shall stand terminated by efflux of time with expiry of 3 years. However, the lessee exercised the option vide communication dated 12. 8. 1992 for renewal of the lease for a further period of 3 years in terms of the Lease Deed. According to the lessor, the lessee was not entitled to the extension and he even declined to accept the rent. Unfortunately, Sh. Nanak chand Oberoi died on 26. 11. 1993 leaving behind all the respondents as his legal heirs. The Bank had acquired another premises being premises No. N-13, NDSE part-I, New Delhi where they had shifted their major and substantial activities and staff. The Lessor requested the Bank to vacate the premises and vide letter dated 3. 8. 1995, requested that they should vacate the premises and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises by 16. 8. 1995. No response was received from the lessee resulting in issuance of another letter dated 17. 8. 1995 which clearly stated that though the Bank was not entitled to exercise of any option of renewal, but even taking the same as per the assertion of the Bank that it had one option for renewal, the said option had expired on 16. 8. 8. 1995 which clearly stated that though the Bank was not entitled to exercise of any option of renewal, but even taking the same as per the assertion of the Bank that it had one option for renewal, the said option had expired on 16. 8. 1995 and thus, the bank should immediately vacate the premises failing which they shall be liable to pay damages for the use and occupation of the premises on the market value which was estimated at Rs. 10,000/- per day. A letter was written by the Bank on 29th/30th March, 1996 stating that the Bank was continuing as a contractual tenant in the property. This averment was refuted by the lessor. As the bank did not vacate the premises, the lessor filed the suit for recovery of possession and rent for the period 17. 8. 1992 to 16. 8. 1995 at the rate of rs. 14,587. 65 aggregating to Rs. 5,25,215. 40 and also claimed damages for the use and occupation of the premises for the period of 17. 3. 1995 @ Rs. 10,000/- per day till the date of vacation. ( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the bank who besides taking certain preliminary objections in regard to the maintainability of the suit, also raised the plea that the bank is a contractual tenant as Sh. Nanak Chand Oberoi had agreed to lease out the premises in question for an indefinite period. It was also stated that the option had already been exercised in terms of the Lease deed. Vide their letter dated 18. 8. 1992, the execution and the terms and conditions of the lease deed were not denied. It was stated that the bank had been forwarding cash orders towards rent but they were not encashed by the respondents. It was specifically pleaded that the respondents had no cause of action to institute the suit, the plaint was vague and the bank was not liable to be evicted. It was further stated that the rent was refused by the respondents themselves and it was further denied that the respondents were entitled to recover Rs. 10,000/- per day as claimed, primarily for the reason that the said amount was not the rate prevalent in the market for such premises. The replication was also filed denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterating the averments made in the plaint. 10,000/- per day as claimed, primarily for the reason that the said amount was not the rate prevalent in the market for such premises. The replication was also filed denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterating the averments made in the plaint. It was stated that the suit be dismissed. Vide its order dated 22. 2. 2000, the learned Single Judge framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the defendant was occupying the premises as a contractual tenant" if so, to what effect" 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages/mesne profits" If so, at what rate and for what period" 3. Relief. " ( 4 ) AS recorded in the orders of the suit file dated 28. 10. 1999, the possession over the disputed property had been handed over to the present respondents on 30. 9. 1999. In view of these averments and as correctly noticed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, issue no. 1 had been rendered inconsequential and as such did not subsist for determination by the court. Issue no. 2, of course, was answered by the learned Court in favour of the respondents and against the appellant and decree was passed. The correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge is questioned on law and fact by the appellant in the present appeal on the following grounds:- (a) The impugned judgment does not answer and record the findings on issues as contemplated under the provision of Order XIV of the CPC. (b) The findings recorded are based on no evidence and the respondents have failed to discharge their onus of proving any fair market rent/damages payable in the period of 1995 to 1998. The findings in this regard granting a rate of rs. 111/- per square feet is erroneous. (c) The Court could not have drawn judicial notice in regard to the prevalent rents in the market. Such presumption being a matter of fact was to be proved by evidence and the finding of the Court is contrary to law. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that no finding recorded in the judgment under appeal is either erroneous or against law. According to him, every finding is relatable to the evidence produced and proved on record by the respondents. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that no finding recorded in the judgment under appeal is either erroneous or against law. According to him, every finding is relatable to the evidence produced and proved on record by the respondents. It cannot be even argued that the judgment is perverse in law or on facts and in fact, specific oral and documentary evidence was led by the respondents to substantiate its plea taken in the judgment. ( 6 ) THE respondents had examined two witnesses PW1,sh. Chander Mohan Oberoi and PW2, Dr. Pradeep Trehan and had closed his evidence after proving documents as mentioned in their depositions. The appellant had examined three witnesses in support of its case. LCDW1, Sh. V. K. Dhingra had tendered in evidence, his exhibit DW1/1. LCDW2, Sh. Rajinder Prasad Jain was the Assistant Manager of the bank of Rajasthan. We do find that the entire oral and documentary evidence led by the parties has not been discussed in detail in the impugned judgment. It cannot be disputed and in fact, was not disputed that there is no direct evidence on record as to what was the prevalent market rent of such premises in the year 1995. As regards the evidence to support the claim of the respondents with effect from 1998, there is sufficient documentary and oral evidence to substantiate the claim and justify the findings recorded in the impugned judgment. Certainly, the onus of this issue was upon the respondents and as rightly noticed in the judgment, the documentary evidence PW1/1, PW2/a and PW3/1 related to the years 1998 onwards and reflected rents for mezzanine and first floors from Rs. 80/- per square feet to Rs. 111/- per square feet. There was no evidence on record as to what was the market rent from 17. 8. 1995 to 30. 9. 1998. PW1 in his statement had stated that they were claiming an estimated market rent of Rs. 10,000/- per day after 1995. However, he also stated that another shop bearing no. G-15, in occupation of M/s. Bata India Ltd. was given on renewed lease with effect from 1. 8. 1998 at an overall rent of Rs. 4,50,000/- and had referred to other rent deeds for the period after 1998. 10,000/- per day after 1995. However, he also stated that another shop bearing no. G-15, in occupation of M/s. Bata India Ltd. was given on renewed lease with effect from 1. 8. 1998 at an overall rent of Rs. 4,50,000/- and had referred to other rent deeds for the period after 1998. He made a vague statement that from 1995 to 1998, the rents were on the higher side but in his cross-examination he also stated that he was not aware as to what rent was being paid by the said public undertakings in the year 1995 or prior thereto. PW2, dr. D. S. Trehan had referred to the lease of premises no. G-15 and had stated that the last renewal of the lease was effected in the year 1998 at the sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- for a period of 6 years with an escalation clause for increase of rent by 20%. According to him the said premises were rented out in the year 1988 for a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/- and when the lease expired in the year 1998, the rent was Rs. 37,000/- per month. L. C. DW2 had also stated that the rent was Rs. 29,000/- per month when the bank was shifted to the first floor of E-17, NDSE, Pt-II and the lease was extended for a period of 5 years i. e. 1995 to 2000. L. C. DW1 denied any knowledge about the rent payable by the branch office at N-13. ( 7 ) AS is clear from the above oral and documentary evidence that none of the parties had opted to place on record any direct evidence i. e. any lease deed and/or had not even produced any owner or a lessee of a property who had given on rent the premises during the period 1995 to 1998. Ex. DW3/a is a document which was executed on 2. 7. 1988 for renting out the premises no. G-25, South extension, Part-1. The area of 4500 square feet was rented out @ Rs. 25/- per square feet and was initially rented out for a period of 5 years with an extension clause that "the Bank will have an option of further period of lease for five years more on the same terms and conditions except that the rent will be increased by 25%. 25/- per square feet and was initially rented out for a period of 5 years with an extension clause that "the Bank will have an option of further period of lease for five years more on the same terms and conditions except that the rent will be increased by 25%. As far as the findings recorded in relation to period after the year 1998, it does not call for any interference because the Court has to apply some element of guesswork on the basis of the documentary evidence produced before it. There was sufficient evidence before the Court for fixing the average monthly rent of Rs. 130/- per square feet per month for the period 1998 onwards but this per se would not be correct for the period prior thereto. The quantum of rent/damages is a matter of evidence and has to be proved by the party on which the onus lies. It may not be very correct in law to say that the ground floor of the premises would always fetch 25% to 30% higher monthly rent than the first floor. We are unable to sustain the findings recorded in the impugned judgment in its entirety and particularly the following findings:- "14. Taking judicial notice of the fact that the ground floor premises fetch at least 25% to 30% higher monthly rent than the first floor premises, I determine the fair market rent as of 1998 at Rs. 140/- per sq. ft. per month. Since I have to determine the damages for the period 17. 8. 1995 to 30. 9. 1998, I treat the average monthly rent at Rs. 130/- per sq. ft. per month. 15. As noted above, total area is 1800 sq. ft. Monthly rent, therefore, comes to Rs. 2,34,000/ -. For 49 months and 15 days, total damages,therefore, come to Rs. 2,34,000/- x 49. 5 = Rs. 1,15,83,000/- (Rupees one crore fifteen lacs and eighty three thousand only ). 16. There is no evidence lead by the parties on the interest. But taking note of the fact that for the period in question, banks were offering interest @ 10% per annum on fixed deposits, I hold that the plaintiffs would be entitled to interest @ 10% per annum on the sum awarded. Interest would accrue each month on the montly damages determined by me i. e. Rs. 2,34,000/- per month. 17. But taking note of the fact that for the period in question, banks were offering interest @ 10% per annum on fixed deposits, I hold that the plaintiffs would be entitled to interest @ 10% per annum on the sum awarded. Interest would accrue each month on the montly damages determined by me i. e. Rs. 2,34,000/- per month. 17. Since admittedly rent was being paid to plaintiff No. 1, I direct that the sum awarded would be paid to the plaintiff No. 1" ( 8 ) THE court may presume existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business. Some circumstances have to exist to give presumption to such a fact. There has to be definite evidence on record to establish that there was a continuous increasing trend in the market rent of the premises and there was difference of 25% to 30% in the market rent of the ground floor and the first floor premises. The documents produced by the parties on record do not show this fact to be proved even on a reasonable basis. In fact, the parties have led no evidence to show what was the rent in the year 1995 and especially in relation to the ground floor during the period 1995 to 1998. The only document available was Ex. DW3/a. ( 9 ) THE increasing trend of the rent in relation to these commercial buildings have been reflected by the various exhibits as well as the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties. It may be assumed that there was an increasing trend in the market rent for the entire period i. e. from the year 1995 to 1998, keeping in view the evidence produced. Even applying the settled principles to the facts of the present case, the average rent would have to be necessarily reduced for the period 1995-1998. If the principle of increasing trend of rent has to be applied equally, the Court will have to apply the principle of progressively decreasing rental value as the average rent on the basis of the evidence relevant for the years 1998-1999. If the principle of increasing trend of rent has to be applied equally, the Court will have to apply the principle of progressively decreasing rental value as the average rent on the basis of the evidence relevant for the years 1998-1999. Again no evidence in this regard has been led by the parties and the Court would have to apply certain element of guesswork and fix the rent for the year 1995-1998 with a decreasing element of 15% decrease every year. In the impugned decree, the damages have been fixed on guesswork, by giving an increase particularly taking note of the fact that the ground floor is likely to fetch higher rent. It may also be noticed that under the Lease Deed, Ex. P-1, renewal of the Lease Deed is permitted upon increase in the last paid rent. Even otherwise, to balance the equities between the parties and to meet the ends of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the damages could be awarded to the respondent by decreasing 15% rent annually, keeping 1998-1999 as the base year for which the court has determined the rent/damages on the basis of the documents and oral evidence. Thus, the rent on the above calculations would be Rs. 110/- p. m. for the year 1997, Rs. 93/- p. m. for the year 1996 and Rs. 79/- per month for the year 1995. ( 10 ) WE are unable to agree with another finding recorded in the impugned judgment which is with regard to the total area for which the appellants are liable to pay rent/damages for the use and occupation of the said premises. As is apparent from the above recorded findings, the learned Court has noticed that the total area is 1800 sq. ft. while according to the appellant the carpet area is only 1326. 15 sq. ft. As such no liability could be fastened upon the appellant for an area in excess of the said area. ( 11 ) THE records of the suit were available before us during the hearing of the appeal. In paragraph 1 of the plaint, the respondents have stated that "ground Floor portion of the property situate at G-22, South Extension Part-I, new Delhi having a carpet area measuring 1326. 15 sq. ft. ( 11 ) THE records of the suit were available before us during the hearing of the appeal. In paragraph 1 of the plaint, the respondents have stated that "ground Floor portion of the property situate at G-22, South Extension Part-I, new Delhi having a carpet area measuring 1326. 15 sq. ft. with Verandah in front " a site plan whereof is appended hereto and market Exhibit 'a' was let out to the Defendant by late Shri Nanak Chand Oberoi in terms of a duly registered lease Deed dated 17th August, 1989 for a term of 3 years commencing from the date of execution of the said Lease Deed Viz. 17th August, 1989 with only one option for renewal for a further period of 3 years on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/-per sq. ft. " In the entire plaint, there is no reference to any fact that the said area was exceeded or that there was any distinction between the carpet and the covered area during the continuation of the tenancy at any relevant point of time. Ex. P1 is an admitted document which is the copy of the Lease Deed executed between the parties. Even in his statement PW1 has not stated that the area in question was more and the respondents were entitled to recover rent/damages for the area in excess of the area as stated in Ex. P1. Ex. P1 is a written document admitted between the parties and in the recitals of the said document it has been recorded as under. "demised unto the Lessee the Building having a carpet area measuring 1326 sq. ft. situated at G-22, South Extension Part I, New Delhi, bounded as follows:-North : Plot No. G/20 (Old No. G/21)South : Plot No. G/23 east : Road west : Foot path and Lawn with Verandah in the front and use of open space in the rear portion of the demised premises (for which no rent shall be payable by the LESSEE to the lessor) for a terms of three years from the date of execution of this Deed with only one option for renewal of the Lease for a further period of three years as herein provided on a monthly rent @ Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. for the total carpet area of 1326. 15 sq. ft. 10/- per sq. ft. for the total carpet area of 1326. 15 sq. ft. payable within a fortnight after the expiry of one month in which it shall be due. " ( 12 ) THE above contents of the written document cannot be permitted to be rebutted by an argument that the area under tenancy was in excess of the area specified in the document as well as the plaint. No oral or other evidence could be given in proof of the terms of the contract which already has been reduced in writing and has been proved in accordance with law. Thus, we would modify the judgment and decree under appeal also to the extent that the area in question is only 1326 sq. ft. and the damages/rent payable by him is computable on that basis. After the decree was passed vide order dated 23. 8. 2006, the court had directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 crore in this court within six weeks, and which was to be kept in a Fixed Deposit Receipt and subject to the compliance of this condition operation of the judgment and decree was to remain stayed. However, this order was modified vide order of the division Bench dated 20. 11. 2006 wherein the respondents were permitted to withdraw the said sum of Rs. 1 crore from the Registry of the Court and recovery of further amount was stayed. This order, on appeal, was modified by the supreme Court vide its order dated 14. 12. 2006 and the respondents were permitted to withdraw the amount, but subject to their furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Registrar General of the High Court. The security was furnished and the amount was withdrawn. ( 13 ) IN view of this fact and our discussion above, we modify the judgment and decree under appeal to the following extent:- (a) The area for which the rent/damages for use and occupation of premises in question by the appellant would be 1326. 15 sq. ft. and not 1800 sq. ft. (b) The rent/damages payable for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 shall be @ rs. 79/-, Rs. 93/- and Rs. 110/- per month respectively. (c) The damages payable for the year 1998-1999 would remain the same as awarded in the impugned judgment i. e. Rs. 130/- per sq. ft. 15 sq. ft. and not 1800 sq. ft. (b) The rent/damages payable for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 shall be @ rs. 79/-, Rs. 93/- and Rs. 110/- per month respectively. (c) The damages payable for the year 1998-1999 would remain the same as awarded in the impugned judgment i. e. Rs. 130/- per sq. ft. per month (d) The respondents shall also be entitled to interest @ 10% per annum as awarded by the learned Single Judge. (e) After adjustment of Rs. 1 crore, which has already been received by the respondent, if any amount is due and payable by the appellant to the respondent, the same shall be paid within two weeks from the date of pronouncement of this order. (f) The appellant shall ensure that the decree passed by this Court is complied with within the stipulated time. ( 14 ) THE decree under appeal is thus, modified to the above extent. The registry shall draw a decree in terms of the above findings. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we would leave the parties to bear their own costs.