JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J.- The defendant was inducted as a tenant by the plaintiff in the year 1967. The premises let out to the defendant were basement below Delhi Nursing Home, being part of property bearing" No. 11/4238, situated at 1, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. Agreed rent was Rs. 2,500/- per month. There was periodical increase in the rental and, therefore, with effect from 1.4.1992 the defendant started paying rent @ Rs. 4,665/- per month. The tenancy of the defendant was according to English calendar month commencing on the first and ending on the last date of the month. Vide notice dated 8.3.1999 sent by the plaintiff through his Counsel, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy and called upon the defendant to vacate the premises and give him the possession by 30.4.1989. Since the defendant did not pay any heed to this demand, the plaintiff filed a suit for possession in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi. On the premise that the defendant had become unauthorised and illegal occupant of the premises in question (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) with effect from 1.5.1989, the plaintiff is also claiming that he is entitled to market rate of rent from this date, which the defendant is liable to pay. However, the plaintiff has claimed the mesne profits @ Rs. 15/- per sq. ft., i.e. Rs. 69,202.35 per month. In this manner, with d effect from 1.10.1996 till 30.9.1999 claim of Rs. 23,23,344/- is made after giving the adjustment of Rs. 1,67,940/- already paid. According to the plaintiff, the market rent is Rs. 40,000/- per sq. ft. and having regard to the fact that the tenancy covered total area of 4613.49 sq. ft. his demand is for payment of rent @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per month. The defendant has been paying the rent at earlier contractual rate, i.e. Rs. 4,665/- and up to the date of filing of this suit the defendant had paid total amount of Rs. 1,67,940/-. The plaintiff also claims an inquiry under the provisions of Order 20 Rule 12, CPC to determine the rate of damages/mesne profits payable by the defendant for the period October, 1999 till such time the defendant vacates and surrenders vacant and peaceful possession of the premises. 2. 1,67,940/-. The plaintiff also claims an inquiry under the provisions of Order 20 Rule 12, CPC to determine the rate of damages/mesne profits payable by the defendant for the period October, 1999 till such time the defendant vacates and surrenders vacant and peaceful possession of the premises. 2. I may note at this stage that the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned ADJ on 31.1.2000 and pursuant thereto, the premises were vacated in April, 2000. Thus, the period for which the claim of mesne profits relates is 1.10.1996 to 30.4.2000. 3. The defendant has filed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff on various grounds. It is stated in the first instance that claim is not maintainable as the status of the defendant remained that of a lawful tenant and thus, the defendant was supposed to pay rent only at agreed rate. Objection is also taken to the effect that tenancy was not legally or validly terminated. There is objection about the exact area of the premises as well. However, with the decree of the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff, these objections would not survive, as while passing the decree of possession, same very objections were brushed aside and the said judgment and decree of the learned ADJ between the same parties have attained finality. Therefore, the matter is to be examined only on merits on the basis of evidence led. The defendant has refuted the claim of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 15 sq. ft. or at any other rate. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed on 8.8.2001: "(a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages/mesne profits for the use and occupation? If so for what period and at what rate? (b) Relief." 4. The plaintiff in support of his case has examined himself as PW-l and has produced lease deeds of certain neighbouring properties, which evidence shall be discussed at the appropriate stage. The defendant, on the other hand, has produced two witnesses in rebuttal. DW-1 Sh. D.N. Arora and DW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Khanna, who are the employees of the defendant. Both the pa11ies have filed their written submissions. I have considered these submissions and have gone through the record and my issue-wise findings are as under: Issue No. (a) 5. The defendant, on the other hand, has produced two witnesses in rebuttal. DW-1 Sh. D.N. Arora and DW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Khanna, who are the employees of the defendant. Both the pa11ies have filed their written submissions. I have considered these submissions and have gone through the record and my issue-wise findings are as under: Issue No. (a) 5. Under this issue we have to primarily determine the rate of dam ages/mesne profits. As already pointed out, suit for possession was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has proved the said judgment and decree as Ex. PW 1/2 and Ex. PW 1/2A. In this judgment it is clearly held that the notice of termination of tenancy was valid and also that after the termination of tenancy, the defendant was to vacate the premises by 30.5.1989. As it did not vacate the premises with effect from 1.5.1989, occupation of the defendant was illegal and unauthorised. As this judgment and decree has attained finality, the only question is the determination of rate of mesne profits as such an enquiry. in these circumstances, would be permissible under Order 20 Rule 12, CPC. 6. The plaintiff has, in support of his claim, produced the following documents on record: Ex. PW 1/1-Plan of suit premises. Ex. PW 1/2-Judgment dated 31.1.2000 of the learned ADJ decreeing suit for possession. Ex. PW 1/2A-Decree sheet. Ex. PW 1/3-Plan of Darya Ganj showing the premises in suit in red and marked (X). Ex. PW 1/4-Judgment dated 3.12.1996 passed in appeal. Ex. PW 115-Judgment dated 30.5.95 passed by the ADJ in S.No. 822/95 dated 30.5.1995. Ex. PW 116-(i) Copy of lease deed entered into between Delhi Medical Association and United India Insurance Co. (ii) Vijaya Bank also has another premises (basement) at 2/10, Ansari Road. New Delhi on rent w.e.f 27.1. I 988 @ Rs. 22/- per sq. ft. (iii) From 27.1.1993 rent was increased by 25% @ Rs. 51,531.25 per month and from 27.12.1997 it was increased to Rs. 35/- per sq. ft. i.e. Rs. 65,590/- per month. They also have the ground floor for which same rent is paid. The premises with Vijaya Bank are shown in yellow colour and marked B in the plan Ex. PW 1/3. 7. In his deposition the plaintiff has supported his case proving the aforesaid documents on record. 35/- per sq. ft. i.e. Rs. 65,590/- per month. They also have the ground floor for which same rent is paid. The premises with Vijaya Bank are shown in yellow colour and marked B in the plan Ex. PW 1/3. 7. In his deposition the plaintiff has supported his case proving the aforesaid documents on record. In the cross-examination photocopies of the sanctioned plan of the property were called for and they were placed on record as Ex. PW 1/D and PW 1/D2. 8. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff on the basis of the aforesaid documents submitted that ample evidence was produced to show that the rental of the premises in question could be fixed at Rs. 25/- per sq. ft., which was the rent determined by the various judgments in respect of the premises in the same vicinity. He also submitted that the defendants had not produced any document on record which could prove to the contrary insofar as rental of the premises is concerned. Therefore, demand of the plaintiff to realise rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- per sq. ft. was reasonable, contended the learned Counsel. He also submitted that two witnesses produced by the defendant would advance the case of the defendant. Insofar as Mr. D.N. Arora (DW-1) is concerned, in cross-examination dated 13.7.2004 he admits that the suit premises opens on two sides; cars are parked in both lanes where the premises open; there were about 7/8 cars of the personnel working in the office; barriers were placed on the road to prevent unauthorised entry of vehicles; heavy vehicles of the defendant entered those roads after removal of barriers; offices of Khadi Gramoudyog and India Tools Industries were also near the suit premises; Vijay Bank is also at the beginning of one of the roads; Manager (Services) of the defendant used to sit there; he had not seen the rent receipts of Fridge Tools or G.K. Distributors of which the rate of rent he says to be Rs. 3/- to Rs. 4/- per sq. ft.; front of Allahabad Bank is a No Parking Zone and road in front of State Bank of India is also a No Parking Zone. 9. Learned Counsel for the defendant, on the other hand, submitted that it was for the plaintiff to produce satisfactory evidence on record in support of his claim of Rs. 15/- per sq. ft. ft.; front of Allahabad Bank is a No Parking Zone and road in front of State Bank of India is also a No Parking Zone. 9. Learned Counsel for the defendant, on the other hand, submitted that it was for the plaintiff to produce satisfactory evidence on record in support of his claim of Rs. 15/- per sq. ft. per month on account of damages for the use and occupation of the premises in question. His submission was that specific plea was raised by the defendant in the written statement that the rates in the area where the property is situated did not increase much. The property is situated in old Delhi and rather lot of slums have come up near the vicinity of the building in question. There are other problems like shol1age of water supply electricity, traffic congestion and parking problem in the area. Because of this reason many companies had shifted their offices from this area which resulted in reduction in rents. His further submission was that the lease deeds of the neighbouring buildings, which were produced by the plaintiff could not be relied upon as they were not comparable. He submitted that in para 12 of his affidavit, the plaintiff has submitted that Allahabad Bank was occupying premises No. 4/4367 and the rate of damages was fixed by the High Court in the said case at Rs. 25/- per sq. ft. and the distance between the premises in suit and that of Allahabad Bank is about 500 metres. Similarly, the plaintiff has admitted that the Vijaya Bank had taken the ground floor property with respect to which the damages awarded are Rs. 35/- per sq. ft. per month and that is not comparable. The plaintiff has also mentioned about the rent of Rs. 22/- being paid by the Vijaya Bank for basement. From the cross-examination, it is clear that building is old, which was constructed in the year 1964 for a total cost of Rs. 45,000/- and in the cross-examination it is also admitted that the portion in occupation of the defendant is a basement and the portion was let out for office as well as storage and workshop and during the examination Ex. 45,000/- and in the cross-examination it is also admitted that the portion in occupation of the defendant is a basement and the portion was let out for office as well as storage and workshop and during the examination Ex. PW -1/D-1 and D2 which are sanctioned plans have been exhibited and the witness has admitted that: "It is correct that portion shown as basement in the original sanction plan was let out to the defendant." The witness was earlier making wrong statement before the Court as in his affidavit filed by way of evidence, witness has tried to mislead the Court as he stated in para 2: "I let out the basement and ground floor to the defendant." The witness further admitted: "It is correct that during the period the premises was let out, the plaintiff did not carry out any repairs or renovations." The witness further admitted that the flooring is cemented and no tiles were fixed in the entire accommodation. The learned Counsel further submitted that as regards Allahabad Bank, in the judgment which has been filed by the plaintiff, the witness has admitted that said Bank was occupying the ground floor and it had a licence to run the branch from the said ground floor. The witness has further admitted that he is not aware of the nature of construction, cost of construction and nature of facilities, fittings and fixtures provided by the landlord to the Allahabad Bank. Similarly, the witness has admitted that the premises of Vijaya Bank are on the ground floor and he is not aware of nature of construction, year of construction and other facilities but has admitted that the landlord has provided store room and lockers as a special facility. He again emphasised that the premises in question are situated in a back lane on Ansari Road; the entry of the building is so small; barriers have been placed to restrict the entry of heavy vehicles and there is no parking space for the visitors. He again emphasised that the premises in question are situated in a back lane on Ansari Road; the entry of the building is so small; barriers have been placed to restrict the entry of heavy vehicles and there is no parking space for the visitors. Further, the construction is very old; the premises itself were taken by the defendant in the year 1964; since then the landlord of the premises never carried out any repairs, whitewash, painting, etc.; the premises being basement were taken for go-down purposes, which was the permissible user as per the rules and regulations; half of the basement area had different height and construction was in such a haphazard manner that except for storage the premises could not be used for any other purpose. On this basis it was submitted that none of the lease deeds and judgments have been relied upon by the plaintiff could have any relevance. 10. Insofar as the argument of the defendant about the area being congested and the problems in the back lane with difficult approach is concerned, one has to keep in mind that the entire area of Ansari Road has this problem. Even the buildings, which are on the main road, face problem of parking and even smooth movement of the traffic. Notwithstanding these problems, fact remains that the entire Ansari Road is virtually the commercial area. There are various offices and commercial establishments as well as shops. No doubt, the buildings, which are newly constructed and on the main road would fetch more rent as compared to the buildings, which are old and inside the lanes. Therefore, in respect of the suit premises same treatment cannot be given in comparison with the premises on the main road and newly constructed buildings. However, all the lease deeds produced by the plaintiff and the judgments where the rentals are fixed in respect of these premises show that the rate of damages fixed is not less than less than Rs. 25/- per sq. ft. and goes up to Rs. 35/- per sq. ft. per month. In respect of the premises taken by Vijaya Bank, rent of Rs. 22/- per sq. ft. is paid during the relevant period. 25/- per sq. ft. and goes up to Rs. 35/- per sq. ft. per month. In respect of the premises taken by Vijaya Bank, rent of Rs. 22/- per sq. ft. is paid during the relevant period. On the other hand there are features pointed out by the defendants which would clearly show that rent of the suit premises cannot be same as that of premises for which lease deeds are produced by the plaintiff. It, however, cannot also be Rs. 4,665/which was contractual rent and would work out to be Re. 1 per sq. ft. only. One can take judicial notice of the fact that during the period in question, i.e. 1996 to 2000 there were increase in rentals all over Delhi. Such an observation was made by this Court in the case of National Radio & Electronic Co. Ltd. v. Motion Pictures Association, 2005 (122) DLT 629. 11. No doubt, there was a period when rentals started falling and during the recent periods rents have again started increasing, in the present case we are concerned with this period which has shown erratic behaviour insofar as rentals are concerned. Clear trend visible from early 80s till the year 2000 was that the rents were steadily increasing as noted in the said judgment. Since we are dealing with that very period, the aforesaid observations of this Court could safely be applied in the instant case as well. 12. The plaintiff has produced on record the lease deed of Vijay a Bank, which is in respect of basement only and the rental is Rs. 22/- per sq. ft. Even if the circumstances narrated by the teamed Counsel are to be taken into consideration, namely, the suit premises is a old construction and it is little away from the main road, etc. which warrant reduction of the market rent of the suit premises, the plaintiffs claim for mesne profits @ Rs. 15/- per sq. ft. is still reasonable as it is 2/3rd of the aforesaid rental. Thus, even by conservative estimate the plaintiff shall be entitled to the rental at this rate. 13. The defendant has also taken the plea that by filing the application that the suit is barred under Order 11 Rule 2, CPC inasmuch as when the suit for possession was instituted, such a claim for damages was not preferred. Thus, even by conservative estimate the plaintiff shall be entitled to the rental at this rate. 13. The defendant has also taken the plea that by filing the application that the suit is barred under Order 11 Rule 2, CPC inasmuch as when the suit for possession was instituted, such a claim for damages was not preferred. He has referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Gajanan R. Salvi v. Satish Shankar Gupta and Ors., AIR 2004 Bombay 455 and that of Allahabad High Court in Sardar Balbir Singh v. Atma Ram Srivastava, AIR 1977 Allahabad 211. However, this aspect should not be detain us any further inasmuch as view is taken by this Court that cause of action for damages would be a continuing cause and when the relief is confined to a period which is within limitation, such a suit can be filed even if claim was not made while instituting the suit for possession. This was decided in the case of Mrs. Ingeborg Foil Sharma v. Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., CS(OS) No. 802/200 I pronounced on 22.5.2006 in the following words: 8. Therefore, the question that arises is as to whether claim for damages is founded on same cause of action. I f it be so, the suit would be barred under Order 2 Rule 2, CPC. However, on the other hand, the claim for damages provides distinct cause of action. The suit would be permissible. 9. Identical issue came up for hearing before this Court in the case of Girdhari Lal Dhara v. Amin Chand & Ors., 2001 VI AD (Delhi) 761. After discussing plethora of case law on the issue the Court opined that suit for possession of immovable property is based on a distinct cause of action than the suit claiming damages and is, therefore, not by order 2 Rule 2, CPC. The relevant discussion on this aspect is contained in the following para: "Issue No. 4 I propose to take up this issue for discussion first. In previously instituted Suit No. 386/74 the plaintiff had claimed licence fee @ Rs. 1500/- per month for a period of 5 years and mesne profits @ Rs. 2450/- per month with effect from 7th November, 1972 till the date of filing of suit, totalling Rs. 50,375/-. In previously instituted Suit No. 386/74 the plaintiff had claimed licence fee @ Rs. 1500/- per month for a period of 5 years and mesne profits @ Rs. 2450/- per month with effect from 7th November, 1972 till the date of filing of suit, totalling Rs. 50,375/-. Relying on the decisions in Naba Kumar Hazra and Another v. Radhashyam Mahish and Others, AIR 1931 Privy Council 229, Mohammad Khalil Khan and Others v. Mahbub Ali Mian and Others, AIR (36) 1949 Privy Council 78; Mewa Kaur v. Banarsi Prasad, (1895) ILR 17 Allahabad 533; Ganeshi Lal v. Bansi Dhar, AIR 1933 Allahabad 84; Saghir Hassan v. Tayab Hasan, AIR 1940 Allahabad 524; Hiromal and Others v. Faridkhan, AIR 1915 Sind 35; and Mohd. Yunas Fazal Mohamad v. Mst. Jahan Sultan dlo Ahmad Din and Another, AIR (29) 1942 Peshawar 9, the submission advanced on behalf of contesting defendants was that as the relief of possession which was open to the plaintiff in said Suit No. 386/74, was not claimed therein, present suit for possession of property is barred by Order 11 Rule 2, CPC. On the contrary, it was contended on behalf of plaintiff that previous suit claiming only the mesne profits would not bar subsequent suit for possession of property. In support of submission, reliance was placed on the decisions in Sadhu Singh and Others v. Pritam Singh s/o Narain Singh and Another, AIR 1976 Punjab & Haryana 38(FB); Shankarlal Laxminarayan Rathi and Others v. Gangabisen Maniklal Sikchi and Another, AIR 1972 Bombay 326 (FB); Abburi Rangamma v. Chitrapu Venupurnachandra Rao and Others, AIR 1996 AP 325 (DB) and Prem Nath Kapur v. Gurdit Singh & Ors., 1971 RLR (Note) 126. There has been conflict of judicial opinion on the question whether claim for possession of property and claim for mesne profits arising therefrom are two distinct and separate causes of action or both these claims constitute a single indivisible cause of action. Decisions other than in Naba Kumar Hajra and Mohd. Khalil Khans cases (supra), relied on behalf of defendants, are by Allahabad, Sind and Peshawar High Courts. Decisions other than in Naba Kumar Hajra and Mohd. Khalil Khans cases (supra), relied on behalf of defendants, are by Allahabad, Sind and Peshawar High Courts. It may be noticed that Naba Kumar Hajras case had been brought to the notice of Court on behalf of appellants in Sadhu Singhs case (supra) and in Para No. 31 of the decision (on Page 46) it was observed that there was nothing to indicate that Privy Council intended to depart from the settled principle (both in Indian and English laws) that an action for mesne profits and an action for recovery of immovable property were founded on distinct causes of action. Mohd. Khalil Khans case was taken note of by this Court in Prem Nath Kapoors case (supra). In RFA No. 49/79 S. Santokh Singh & Another v. S. Gurbax Singh. decided on 16th July, 200 I a Division Bench of this Court taking note of the ratio of aforesaid two Ful1 Bench decisions rendered by Punjab & Haryana and Bombay High Courts, has affirmed the judgment rendered by Single Judge of this Court in Prem Nalh Kapoors case holding that suit for possession of immovable property is based on a distinct cause of action and is thus not barred by Order II Rule 2, CPC. Following these two decisions the relief with respect to possession of suit land and construction raised thereon must be held to be not barred by Order II Rule 2(3). CPC. Issue is answered against the defendants." 14. In view of this direct judgment on the point. the two cases cited by the learned Counsel for the defendant, i.e. N.V. Srinivasa Murthy v. Mariyamma, V (2005) SLT 202= 2005 (5) SCC 548 and Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair v. Narayanan Nair, 1 (2004) SLT 872= 2004(3) SCC 277 would not apply in this case. I may point out that though no issue is framed on limitation, learned Counsel for the defendant had argued that suit was filed on 29.10.1999 and. therefore, claim for damages/mesne profit before October. 1996 would be time-barred. Since the suit was filed on 29.10.1999, counting the period of three years for which suit could be filed, claim of mesne profits would be maintainable with effect from 29.10.1996 and, therefore, mesne profits claimed from 1.10.1996 to 28.10.1996 is time-barred and mesne profits are accordingly granted only for the period from 29.10.1996 to 30.4.2000. 1996 would be time-barred. Since the suit was filed on 29.10.1999, counting the period of three years for which suit could be filed, claim of mesne profits would be maintainable with effect from 29.10.1996 and, therefore, mesne profits claimed from 1.10.1996 to 28.10.1996 is time-barred and mesne profits are accordingly granted only for the period from 29.10.1996 to 30.4.2000. Issue No. (b) 15. I am, therefore, of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to damages/mesne profits for use and occupation of the premises by the defendant with effect from 29.10.1996 til1 30.4.2000 at the rate of Rs. 15/- per sq. ft. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to proportionate cost. Decree be drawn accordingly. Ordered accordingly