JUDGMENT : A.K. Parichha, J. - The unsuccessful Plaintiff is in appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak passed in M.S. No. 127 of 1992-III. 2. The Plaintiff filed the suit for realization of arrear rent as per the account sheet annexed to the plaint, for a decree for realization of enhanced rent and for eviction of the Defendant-respondents from the suit premises. In addition, he also prayed for award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/ per month for the period 20.2.1992 to 1.10.1992 and thereafter ' Rs. 200/- per day till the Defendants give vacant possession of the suit premises. 3. The Plaintiff's case, in essence, was that he had a single storied house at Chandan Bazar in Bhadrak town. Defendant No. 4, the Branch Manager of Union of India, Chandan Bazar Branch approached him to construct the first floor over the existing building and to rent the same to their bank. Defendant No. 4 promised that to facilitate such construction, the Bank would give loan to the Plaintiff and would take that first floor on rent for 10 years. The Plaintiff accordingly, availed loan of Rs. 65,000/- and by making a total expenditure of Rs. 1,20,000/- constructed the first floor and the Bank occupied the same with effect from dated 18.01.1982. While sanctioning the loan, a provisional agreement was drawn up stipulating the rent ' Rs. 0.50 paise per square feet of carpet area for a total area of 1550 sq. ft. Later on, Defendants demanded an internal staircase, which was built, by the Plaintiff, as a result of which the carpet area of the building was enhanced to 1724 sq.ft. Since there was huge expenditure in the construction of the 1st floor of the building and the carpet area was also enhanced, the Plaintiff asked the Defendants to execute a lease agreement stipulating rent ' Rs. 1.25 paise per square feet of carpet area for total area,of 1724 sq.ft, but the Defendants did not respond to such request and went on sanctioning rent for 1550 sq.ft. only ' Rs. 0.50 paise per square feet of carpet area and adjusted that rent amount towards the loan account of the Plaintiff. They also demanded further sum of Rs. 600/- from the Plaintiff every month towards repayment of the loan. only ' Rs. 0.50 paise per square feet of carpet area and adjusted that rent amount towards the loan account of the Plaintiff. They also demanded further sum of Rs. 600/- from the Plaintiff every month towards repayment of the loan. The Plaintiff claimed that the rent paid by the Defendants was unrealistic and against equity and insisted repeatedly for enhancement of rent and execution of the lease deed stipulating a fair rent, but the Defendants turned deaf ear. The Defendants also continued to occupy the suit premises even after expiry of the agreed period of 10 years without enhancing the rent and refused to vacate the suit premises on the plea that they are entitled to occupy the building till the loan amount with interest is repaid by the Plaintiff. In that situation, finding no other alternative, the Plaintiff filed the suit seeking the aforementioned reliefs. 4. Defendant Nos. l to 3 did not contest the suit and were set ex parte. Defendant No. 4 filed written statement resisting the claim of the Plaintiff on the plea that there was clear understanding and agreement between the bank and the Plaintiff that the bank would pay rent ' Rs. 0.50 paise per square feet of carpet area and there was never any promise or stipulation of higher rent. It was also pleaded that the internal staircase to the 1st floor was a condition precedent and the total carpet area of the 1st floor occupied by the bank was 1550 sq. ft. only. He further pleaded that in the loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant-bank, it was clearly stipulated that the bank would continue possession over the premises of the Plaintiff till the loan with interest is fully repaid and therefore, the bank was entitled to continue possession of the premises even after expiry of the initial period of 10 years. He further pleaded that the Defendants repeatedly requested and insisted the Plaintiff for execution of the lease deed, but the Plaintiff avoided to execute the same and therefore, the parties were bound by the initial agreement. He further pleaded that the Defendants repeatedly requested and insisted the Plaintiff for execution of the lease deed, but the Plaintiff avoided to execute the same and therefore, the parties were bound by the initial agreement. Defendant No. 4.also challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the Union Bank of India, which is a Nationalised Bank and a statutory person, was not made a party in the suit although the building had been taken on rent by the said bank and that the claim of arrear rent is barred by limitation. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as 12 issues. The Plaintiff examined himself and another witness and produced several documents, which were marked as Exts.l to 16. Defendant No. 4 also examined one witness and produced documents including an agreement dated 19.1.1981, which was marked as Exts.A to C. On consideration of all these evidence, the trial court came to the findings that there was agreement between the parties stipulating rent ' Rs. 0.50 paise per square feet of carpet area, that the lease deed could not be executed due to non-cooperation of the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff availed loan of Rs. 65,000/- and executed agreement, Exts.A & B voluntarily and in Ext.C he authorized the bank to credit the rent to his loan account, that the Plaintiff is not entitled to fair rent as per P.W.D. rate as that was not stipulated in the agreement, that the Defendants are not liable to pay higher rate of rent, that the suit is not maintainable in the present form as the Union Bank of India was not made a party. With these findings, the trial court dismissed the suit. So, the Plaintiff has come up with the present appeal. 6. Mr. Kar, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, challenging the impugned judgment and decree, stated that the initial agreements, Exts.A & B were drawn up for the purpose of loan and contained draft proposals and terms for the lease of the house and that the lease deed was to be executed by the Defendants stipulating a fair rent ' Rs. 1.25 paise per square feet of carpet area for 1724 sq. ft. because the internal staircase was built on the demand of the Defendants and huge expenditure of Rs. 1,20,000/- was met for construction of the 1st floor. 1.25 paise per square feet of carpet area for 1724 sq. ft. because the internal staircase was built on the demand of the Defendants and huge expenditure of Rs. 1,20,000/- was met for construction of the 1st floor. He stated that by not executing the lease agreement soon after occupation of the premises Defendants made themselves liable for payment of fair rent at Government P.W.D. rate. He also stated that after expiry of the initial period of 10 years, the Defendants became trespassers and were liable to pay damages at the rate claimed-by the Plaintiff. He also argued that the suit was never bad for non-joinder of Union Bank of India as Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, who represent the Bank for all purposes. In addition to such argument, Mr. Kar also pressed his prayer made in Misc. Case No. 74 of 2007 accepting one letter of the Assistant ""General Manager as additional evidence on the plea that the said.document is an admission of the Defendants on the score of higher and arrear rent. In support of this prayer under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, he cited the cases of Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation and Ors. v. R.P. Agarwalla and bros. and Ors. 1986 (1) CLJ, 1, Nityananda Bakshy and Another Vs. Banamali Bakshy and Others, ; K. Venkataramiah Vs. A. Seetharama Reddy and Others, and Sukru Bibhar Vs. Tileswar Naik and Others, where it was essentially said that additional evidence can be considered in the Interest of justice and for proper adjudication of the lis and that such additional evidence can be allowed even at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits. 7. Mr. S.K. Dey, Learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and argued that the Plaintiff willfully and voluntarily entered into an agreement to let out his 1st floor premises to the Union Bank of India on rent' Rs. 0.50 paise per square feet of carpet area for a period of 10 years and executed agreement in that regard. While availing the loan of Rs. 65,000/- Plaintiff executed documents and issued letter of authority that the rent amount would be adjusted towards his loan account and that in addition he would further pay Rs. 0.50 paise per square feet of carpet area for a period of 10 years and executed agreement in that regard. While availing the loan of Rs. 65,000/- Plaintiff executed documents and issued letter of authority that the rent amount would be adjusted towards his loan account and that in addition he would further pay Rs. 600/ every month towards repayment of the loan and further agreed that the Bank would continue occupation of his premises till loan with interest is fully cleared up. Mr. Dey alleged that according to this agreement, the rent amounts were taken regularly to the loan account of the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did not pay Rs. 600/- every month, as a result the loan remained outstanding against him for which reason the Union.&Ink had to remain in occupation of the house of the Plaintiff. He claimed that there is evidence on record to show that the Plaintiff avoided to execute the lease deed and there was never any stipulation or undertaking from the side of the Defendants that rent at enhanced rate or fair rent at Government rate would be paid. He stated that the claim of the Plaintiff was not maintainable as it was barred by limitation and non-joinder of the Union Bank of India. Mr. Dey resisted the prayer for accepting the copy of the letter of Assistant General Manager as additional evidence on the plea that the same was an internal communication of the Bank and carries only a suggestion to the management. According to him, existence of such letter was never pleaded by the Plaintiff, so the same cannot be accepted as additional evidence and admitted as such. 8. At the outset it is necessary to indicate that although the trial court' framed as many as 12 issues in the suit, the following aspects only required adjudication. (i) Whether there was agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants for rent of carpet area of 1500 sq.ft or 1724 sq.ft ? (ii) Whether rate of rent stipulated in the agreement between the parties was at the rate of Rs. 0.50 paise per square ft. of carpet area or ' fair rent stipulated by the P.W.D. of the State Government? (iii) Whether the Plaintiff agreed that the rent would be adjusted towards his loan account and in addition, he would deposit Rs. 600/- every month towards repayment of the loan? 0.50 paise per square ft. of carpet area or ' fair rent stipulated by the P.W.D. of the State Government? (iii) Whether the Plaintiff agreed that the rent would be adjusted towards his loan account and in addition, he would deposit Rs. 600/- every month towards repayment of the loan? (iv) Whether the Defendants became trespassers in the suit premises on expiry of the period of 10 years stipulated in the agreement and are liable to be evicted and also to pay damages? (v) Whether there was any cause of action for the suit? and (vi) Whether the suit was maintainable in the existing form? 9. There is no dispute that the Plaintiff availed loan from the Union Bank of India, constructed the first floor of the building and rented it out to the Union Bank of India. In this regard, the Defendants produced Exts.A, B & C. Ext.B is an agreement executed by the Plaintiff with the Bank on 26.12.1981 and Ext.C is the letter given by the Plaintiff on 9.9.1982 to Defendant No. 4. D.W.l, who is Defendant No. 4 stated that after the terms and conditions of the loan and the rent of the proposed house had been settled before the parties those terms and conditions were noted in the agreement, Ext.A. He stated that Ext.B was thereafter executed as continuation of the agreement, Ext.A. According to him, in these agreements, it was clearly stipulated that the.carpet area of 1500 sq. ft. would be rented out to the Bank with a rent ' Rs. 0.50 paise per sq.ft. and the initial period of tenancy would be for a period of 10 years. He stated that in the agreement, Ext.B, the Plaintiff agreed that the period of lease of the premises could be extended for 5 years more after expiry of the initial period of lease mentioned in Ext.A. He further stated that the Plaintiff agreed that the maximum rent for the building would be Rs. 775/- per month and in the letter, Ext.C he (plaintiff) authorized the bank to credit this amount of rent to his loan account towards repayment and further agreed that he would deposit Rs. 600/- every month besides the rent amount towards repayment of loan. 775/- per month and in the letter, Ext.C he (plaintiff) authorized the bank to credit this amount of rent to his loan account towards repayment and further agreed that he would deposit Rs. 600/- every month besides the rent amount towards repayment of loan. The Plaintiff, as P.W. 1 did not deny execution of these documents, Exts.A to C. His plea, however, was that he did not execute these documents voluntarily and was also not aware of the terms and conditions mentioned in these agreements. According to him, the Bank officials gave an understanding that the agreements are only primary documents and that final document of lease would be executed soon after occupation of the building and believing them he put his signatures on the agreements without, understanding the terms and conditions noted therein. He denied that he gave authority to the Bank to adjust his rent towards repayment of his loan or agreed to pay further Rs. 600/- per month towards repayment of the loan. When the execution of the documents, Exts. A & B are not disputed and they were marked as exhibits without objection, the contents of those documents are to be presumed as correct, unless such presumption is dispelled by credible evidence. The Plaintiff did not produce any document or any witness to prove that terms of the agreement were different than what have been stipulated in Exts.A & B. On the contrary, he admitted that he is an educated person managing his business and property and pursuing the litigations relating to his properties in different courts including the High Court. It is, therefore, not believable that a person of his standing and experience could execute the agreement with the Bank without understanding the contents of the agreements. In the documents, Exts.A & B, there is clear stipulation that the Plaintiff would rent out his first floor having carpet area of 1500 sq. ft. to the bank for a period of 10 years with monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 0.50 per sq. ft. and that the lease would be renewable for a further period of five years on the same terms and conditions. No where in these documents, there is any stipulation that rate of rent would be reformulated at the time of execution of the lease document. 0.50 per sq. ft. and that the lease would be renewable for a further period of five years on the same terms and conditions. No where in these documents, there is any stipulation that rate of rent would be reformulated at the time of execution of the lease document. Ext.C clearly reveals that the Plaintiff advised the Bank to credit the rent of the premises amounting to Rs. 775/ per month towards his loan account and further undertook to deposit Rs. 600/- in that loan account every month. There is no evidence that this letter was not sent by the Plaintiff voluntarily. Furthermore, P.W.l also admitted receipt of Ext. 8 from the bank, the contents of which reveal that the Bank offered to take the premises of the Plaintiff stipulating rent ' Rs. 0.50 per sq. ft. of carpet area for total area of 1550 sq. ft. The proposal also indicated that the maximum rent including tax etc. would be Rs. 775/? per month and this monthly rent would be adjusted towards the loan account of the Plaintiff. Accepting this proposal, the Plaintiff executed the agreements, Ext.A & B and also gave letter of authority, Ext.C. In this regard, it would be beneficial to quote the relevant portions of Exts.A, B, C and Ext. 8 Ext.A Clause 4- Rent- Rs. 0.50 per sq. feet of carpet Area per month inclusive of all taxes present and future, payable from the date of taken over possession complete in all respects and after execution of the lease deed as per the terms. Total rent not to exceed Rs. 775.00 per month all inclusive. Rent is to be paid strictly on the basis of the carpet area available and on an actual measurement of the carpet area by me (Land Lord) or authorized representative in presence of Bank's authorized representatives. Clause-8 Repayment of the loan: Entire monthly rent is to be adjusted in the loan account towards payment with accruable interest. I as a landlord herewith given an undertaking to adjust the loan account within the initial lease period and in case of any default the Bank will have option to continue in the premises on expiry of the initial lease period on existing terms and conditions, till the full recovery of the amount. Ext.B Clause 2- I also undertake to deposit Rs. Ext.B Clause 2- I also undertake to deposit Rs. 600/- (rupees six hundred only) per month extra a part from the rent being credited to my loan A/c., and do agree to enter into a tripartite agreement 'if required by the Bank in order to liquidate the entire loan amount within 10 years. Clause-4 The initial lease period will be for 10 years only. It would be renewed for another five years in the same terms and conditions and agree to pay a penal interest of 2.5% P.A. in case I fail to clear of the entire loan amount (sanctioned and additional sanctioned) within the period of 10 years. Ext.C To The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India Bhadrak Branch, Bhadrak. Sub: Credit of house rent in my loan A/c. with you Sir, With reference to above I hereby authorize you to credit the house rent for your bank premises of Rs. 775/?(rupees seven hundred seventy five) in each month to my loan A/c. with you. I shall be thankful for your kind cooperation. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Brusasan Nayak 9.9.1982 Ext.8 Clause-4 Rent: ' 0.50 per sq. ft. of carpet area per month inclusive of all taxes present and future, payable from the date of take over of possession complete in all respects and after execution of the lease deed as per the terms. Total rent not to exceed Rs. 775/- per month all inclusive. Rent is to be paid strictly on the basis of the carpet area available and on actual measurement of the carpet area by you or by your authorized representative in presence of Bank's authorized representative. 'Clause-8- Repayment of Loan: Entire monthly rent is to be adjusted in your loan A/c. towards repayment with accruable interest. You will have to give an undertaking to adjust the loan a/c. within the initial lease period and in case of default, the Bank will have option to continue in the premises on expiry of the initial lease period on existing terms and conditions till full recovery of the account. 10. Regarding these documents, P.W. 1. stated that he actually did not accept the offer and he signed the document in good faith. This plea is unacceptable for the simple reason that no evidence is there to support the plea. 10. Regarding these documents, P.W. 1. stated that he actually did not accept the offer and he signed the document in good faith. This plea is unacceptable for the simple reason that no evidence is there to support the plea. It is also unacceptable that an educated and experienced person like the Plaintiff would execute such document without looking at the terms and conditions laid in the documents. The agreement and the connected documents themselves do not indicate in any manner that there was any understanding stipulating higher rate of rent in case the building expenditure goes beyond the loan amount. There is also no stipulation in any of these documents and it is not revealed from the oral evidence that the bank ever agreed to execute any lease deed stipulating different terms and conditions or different rates of rent. So, the plan of the building, Ext.l, the estimate, Ext. 2 or the letters, Exts.3,4,8, the fair rent calculation, Ext. 14, the map, Ext. 12 prepared by P.W. 2 were of no avail. The trial court, therefore, rightly concluded that the agreement between the parties stipulated tenancy in the premises for a period of 10 years on monthly rent ' Rs. 0.50 per sq. ft of carpet area renewable for a further period of five years on the same terms and conditions. The court also rightly concluded that the Plaintiff had agreed for deposit of the rent amount towards his loan account and had also agreed to deposit Rs. 600/- every month towards repayment of the loan and had also given authority to the Bank to continue occupation of the premises as tenant till the loan with interest is fully repaid. 11. Mr. Kar strongly argued that the execution of the lease deed was a condition precedent, but the Bank did not execute the same in spite of repeated demands of the Plaintiff. According to him, Exts.A to c: relate to the loan transaction of the Plaintiff and cannot be treated as an agreement of lease of the suit premises. He stated that since the Bank failed to execute the lease documents, the Defendants are liable to pay rent at the prevalent market rate. In this regard, he cited the evidence of P.W. 1 and the fair rent calculation sheet prepared by P.W. 2. He stated that since the Bank failed to execute the lease documents, the Defendants are liable to pay rent at the prevalent market rate. In this regard, he cited the evidence of P.W. 1 and the fair rent calculation sheet prepared by P.W. 2. P.W. 1 stated in his evidence that the O.S.E.B., L.I.C., and other public undertakings were paying rent ' Rs. 1.00 per sq. ft and such rent was revisable every three years and for that reason, he was entitled to get rent from the Bank ' Rs. 1.25 per sq. ft. P.W.l also claimed that although he got loan of Rs. 65,000/- from the Bank, he actually spent Rs. 1,20,000/- in the construction of the 1st floor and therefore, the rent ' Rs. 0.50 per sq. ft of carpet area was not acceptable as it was insufficient even for repayment of the loan taken from the bank. In this regard, D.W.1 clarified that the Bank never agreed for any higher rent or to pay rent at the rate paid by other Government and public undertakings and never gave any assurance to the Plaintiff that the rent of the building would itself be sufficient for repayment of the loan. He claimed that as per the terms of the agreement, the rent was stipulated ' Rs. 0.50 per sq. ft and not exceeding Rs. 775/- per month inclusive.of all taxes. This witness also alleged that despite repeated requests, the Plaintiff did not execute the lease deed. As has been stated earlier, in none of the documents, the bank agreed to pay rent more than Rs. 0.50 per sq. ft of carpet area. Clause 9 of Ext.A clearly stipulates that payment and release of rent on taking over possession is conditional upon the execution of the lease deed by the Plaintiff as land lord. The Plaintiff proved the letter, Ext. 3 dated 3.9.1982, and letter dated 15.5.1987, Ext. 4 to show that he demanded execution of the lease deed, but the Defendant failed to execute the same. On the other hand, D.W.1 stated that the letters issued by the Plaintiff stipulated different terms and conditions and higher rent and therefore, the Bank could not have executed the lease deed on the terms, which were not agreed to by the parties. He stated that the Bank's lawyer also issued a letter, Ext. On the other hand, D.W.1 stated that the letters issued by the Plaintiff stipulated different terms and conditions and higher rent and therefore, the Bank could not have executed the lease deed on the terms, which were not agreed to by the parties. He stated that the Bank's lawyer also issued a letter, Ext. 10 asking the Plaintiff to execute the lease deed on the terms and conditions agreed, but the Plaintiff did not execute such document. As has been indicated earlier, the Plaintiff himself agreed that after execution of the lease document by him, the' rent would be released. He did not execute the lease document on the agreed terms and demanded through his letters for execution of the lease deed on different terms and conditions. In such a situation, the Defendants cannot be blamed for non-execution of the lease deed since it was never agreed that the rent would be paid at the prevalent market rate or at P.W.D. fair rate and there was no scope for them to pay such rent nor they could be asked to pay such fair rent for execution of the lease deed. The findings of the trial court are, therefore, just and correct. 12. Regarding the carpet area, it is there in Exts.A and B that the carpet area of the 1st floor would be 1550 sq. ft. P.W. 2 stated that on measurement, he found this area to be 1724 sq.ft and also produced a map in this regard. But he admitted in cross-examination that the same is not in accordance with the map produced by the Plaintiff. He also admitted that he did not take the measurement in presence of the bank officials, who were in occupation of that premises. Therefore, there was no credible evidence to give a ruling that the carpet area was 1724 sq. ft and that the bank was liable to pay for such carpet area. 13. The maintainability of the suit was challenged by Defendant No. 4, mainly on the plea that the Union Bank of India is a statutory body and is a legal person and the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with that Bank for lease of 1st floor and he also took loan for the same purpose from the Union Bank, but the bank was not made a party in the suit. Learned Counsel for the Respondents states that the Defendant Nos. Learned Counsel for the Respondents states that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had no personal interest or liability in the lease or loan transaction between the Plaintiff and bank and any decree, passed in the suit cannot be executed against them and for that reason the suit was not maintainable. The documents, Exts.A, B and 8 would show that the transaction was between the Plaintiff and the bank. The Union Bank of India is a statutory body and is a distinct legal person. There is no evidence on record to show that the Bank had authorized the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to represent it and fight-out the litigation on its behalf. Therefore, the suit suffers from non-joinder of Union Bank of India, who was a necessary party. The Plaintiff, no doubt, filed a petition for amendment of the plaint asking for impleading the Union Bank of India as Defendant, but the same petition was filed at the stage of argument of the suit although Defendant No. 4 had taken a plea in his written statement right from the beginning that the Union Bank of India is a necessary party and the suit is not maintainable in its absence. No doubt, it has been constantly stated by different courts including the apex Court that normally the suit should not be thrown out for non-joinder of necessary or proper party and that the Plaintiff is to be given an opportunity to bring the necessary party on record, but such privilege cannot be extended to the Plaintiff when, the claim against a necessary party, who has been left out, is either barred by limitation or introduces a new case or will cause prejudice to the Defendants. Taking note of this legal position, the trial court after- analyzing the facts situation of the case, held that the claim of the Plaintiff has become time barred and that the Plaintiff, although aware of the plea of the Defendant, did not try to bring the Union Bank of India on record till the fag end of the suit. This ruling of the trial court was not challenged by the Plaintiff in any higher forum.The fact situation also suggests that the trial court took the right view in rejecting the prayer for amendment. This ruling of the trial court was not challenged by the Plaintiff in any higher forum.The fact situation also suggests that the trial court took the right view in rejecting the prayer for amendment. In such a situation, when the most necessary party, the Union Bank of India was not made a Defendant in the suit, the suit in the existing form was not maintainable. 14. The Plaintiff entered Into an agreement with the Bank, availed loan from the Bank, constructed the 1st floor and gave it on rent to the bank, after agreeing to certain terms and conditions. He did not execute the lease deed on the agreed terms, on the contrary, demanded higher rate of rent and insisted for execution of the lease deed on different terms and conditions. The agreed terms and conditions stipulated that the Bank would remain in the suit premises on payment of monthly rent ' Rs. 0.50 per sq. ft of carpet area for a period of 10 years and this would be renewed for further period of five years at the option of the parties. It was further stipulated that if the loan with interest is not repaid in full, then the Defendants would have the right to continue occupation of the suit premises. The Bank and its officials were agreeable to pay rent at the agreed rate. In fact they credited the rent amount every month to the loan account of the Plaintiff. In such a situation, the Plaintiff had no cause of action either for eviction of the bank or for realization of any arrear or higher rate for that period of 10 years. 15. The next question is whether the bank would be a trespasser in the suit premises after expiry of the initial period of lease of 10 years. In this regard, Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that when on expiry or the initial period of lease, the Bank did not take any step for renewal of the lease, it became a trespasser and is accordingly liable to pay damages. To support his contention, he cited the cases of Smt. Dolly Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Anr. 77(1994) CLT 188; Ramji Pandey v. Jayanti Majumdar, 1998(1) OLR, 298 and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Devaraj Chordia and Ors. To support his contention, he cited the cases of Smt. Dolly Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Anr. 77(1994) CLT 188; Ramji Pandey v. Jayanti Majumdar, 1998(1) OLR, 298 and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Devaraj Chordia and Ors. AIR 2005 Mad 274 wherein the courts essentially said that possession of the lessee after expiry of the lease period without renewal of the lease and after issue of notice by the landlord terminating the lease and seeking eviction, would amount to trespass and in such avenue, it would be liable to pay damaged. There is no quarrel with this legal proposition, but the facts and circumstances of the cases cited above, are totally different from the present case. There, after expiry of the lease period, the lessee unilaterally wanted to continue in the lease premises. In the present case, there was clear agreement between the parties that even after expiry of the initial period of 10 years, the lease was renewable for a further period of five years on the same terms and conditions and that the lessee, bank, would continue possession till the loan amount with interest is repaid in full by the Plaintiff. However, as per Clause 9 of Ext.A, such possession of the Bank after a period of 10 years would be on mutual agreed terms and conditions subject to the terms noted in clause-8. Clause 8 stipulates that till repayment of the loan in full, the bank would continue possession as lessee on the same terms and conditions noted in the agreement, which means that at the same rate of rent and on the same terms and conditions. On this score, Learned Counsel for the Appellant insisted for acceptance of the letter given by the A.G.M. of the Bank regarding enhancement of the rate of rent as additional evidence. According to him, this document contains admission of the bank that higher rate of rent is payable after the initial period of lease. First of all, the document was not pressed into service before the trial court. That apart, the document contains an offer, but the Plaintiff could not show that he accepted the offer/suggestion of the bank in that letter. Therefore, the document cannot be accepted as additional evidence to prove any admission of the bank. 16. First of all, the document was not pressed into service before the trial court. That apart, the document contains an offer, but the Plaintiff could not show that he accepted the offer/suggestion of the bank in that letter. Therefore, the document cannot be accepted as additional evidence to prove any admission of the bank. 16. In view of the afore-noted situation, the findings of the trial court on the issues are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed on contest, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost. 17. Before parting, it will be worthwhile to indicate that a suit or appeal is decided on the basis of evidence and legal provisions and the present appeal has been decided in such manner. But it is not to be forgotten that the Union Bank of India is a Public Sector Nationalized Bank and was admittedly in possession of the suit premises till 17.01.1997 and had also proposed certain rate of rents for different periods. Being a public sector Nationalized Bank,it has moral duty to pay rent to the land lord for the period of its occupation at least at their own proposed rates. This observation, however, is purely advisory and cannot be used as a direction or decree against the Bank or Defendants. Final Result : Dismissed