JUDGMENT : - Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) This is the defendants’ Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Plaintiff (respondent herein) filed a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent/mesne profits against defendants (appellants herein). Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 3.5.2001 passed by Senior Sub Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 34/1 of 2000/98, titled as Salig Ram Attri vs. Union of India & another. Findings of fact, judgment and decree to a large extent, stands affirmed by the District Judge, Solan, H.P., vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2001, passed in Civil Appeal No. 23-S/13 of 2000, titled as Union of India & another vs. Salig Ram Attri, in an appeal filed by the defendants. 3. Facts are not much in dispute. Premises owned by the plaintiff were taken on lease by the defendants for a period of three years commencing from 1.12.1990. With the expiry of lease period, defendant failed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession thereof. It is not in dispute that lease was never renewed. Plaintiff served legal notice dated 6.2.1997, calling upon the defendants to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. Despite thereof, defendants failed to do so. 4. Faced with this situation, plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent/mesne profits. Plaintiff claimed arrears of rent @ Rs.2000/- per month for the period 15.4.1995 to 30.4.1997 and for a period thereafter mesne profits till 15.4.1998, the date of presentation of plaint. He also claimed damages for use and occupation of land adjoining to the tenanted premises which stood encroached upon by the defendants. 5. Based on respective pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the defendants have illegally encroached upon the additional fields of the plaintiff measuring about 2 biswas in the year 1995 as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the tenancy of the defendants had been terminated by getting a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 80 CPC dated 5.2.1997 as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed? OPP 4. Whether the suit as laid is not legally maintainable as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad on account of misjoinder and non-joinder of parties, cause of action as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed? OPP 4. Whether the suit as laid is not legally maintainable as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad on account of misjoinder and non-joinder of parties, cause of action as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act, deed, conduct and commission from institution the present suit as alleged? OPD 8. Whether no legal and valid notice has been issued prior to the institution of the suit as alleged? OPD 9. Relief. 6. Trial Court decreed the plaintiff’s suit in the following terms:- “In view of my findings on the above issues the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and a decree for possession of the premises consisting of 4 rooms, one small room, latrine, bathroom, covered verandah and open space situated in Khasra No. 625 mauza Gahi, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. and further a decree for a sum of Rs. 69400/- is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with costs and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization and a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove antenna, earthwire and pole from the land of the plaintiff adjoining to the premises. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File after completion be consigned to record room.” 7. In an appeal filed by the defendants, the lower appellate Court modified the decree, to a limited extent, in the following terms:- “The appeal fails except the finding qua rate of mesne profits. Hence, the decree for possession remains intact. However, the decree for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 69,400/- is modified and reduced to Rs. 57,400/- as above which shall be recoverable from the defendants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. The decree for mandatory injunction as passed by the lower Court also remains undisturbed. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.” 8. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the two courts below have committed illegality by entertaining the suit without statutory compliance of notice under Section 80 C.P.C.? 2. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.” 8. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the two courts below have committed illegality by entertaining the suit without statutory compliance of notice under Section 80 C.P.C.? 2. Whether the two courts below have rightly granted the decree for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2000/-per month? If so, whether the mesne profits could have been granted retrospectively? 3. Whether the suit could not have been entertained in view of the specific clause No. 17 in the agreement for reference of the dispute to the Arbitration? 4. Whether the suit qua recovery of rent is barred by time? 9. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of present appeal, possession of the tenanted premises as also land encroached upon by the defendants stands handed over to the plaintiff. 10. Record reveals that prior to filing of the plaint, notice, as required under the provisions of Section 80 C.P.C. was issued to the defendants. Also with the expiry of lease, correspondence was exchanged between the parties (Ext. P-3, P-5, P-6, P-7, P-8 and Ext. D-3, D-4, D-5). Plaintiff clearly expressed his intention of getting the premises back in asking the defendants to hand over vacant possession and also pay arrears of rent. That apart legal notice (Ext. PW-1/A) terminating the tenancy is on record. Receipt thereof is not in dispute. Even on the question of civil Court being precluded from entertaining the suit, neither did defendants take any objection nor was it urged before the lower appellate Court. 11. On the question of mesne profits, in my considered view, Courts below rightly determined the amount of mesne profits to be Rs.2000/- per month. Findings are based on cogent, reliable and convincing evidence. Defendants unauthorizedly occupied plaintiff’s commercial property of more than 1500 Sq. Mts. apart from encroaching upon his adjoining land. 12. Repeatedly, plaintiff had been requesting the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises and pay arrears of rent and mesne profits, as such, question of suit being barred by law of limitation, as is now urged, does not arise at all. Lease stood determined by afflux of time in the year 1993 itself and defendants failed to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises. Lease stood determined by afflux of time in the year 1993 itself and defendants failed to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises. As such, with each passing day, fresh cause of action arose qua mesne profits. 13. Hence, in my considered view, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. It cannot be said that the judgments passed by the Courts below are based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of facts and material placed on record by the parties or that the same are perverse which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. 14. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.