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 Rs.2,28,560/- against the defendants (appellants herein). Trial Court partly decreed the suit in terms of judgment and decree dated 1.1.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 227/1 of 2005, titled as Salig Ram Attri vs. Union of India & another. Such findings of fact, judgment and decree stand affirmed by District Judge, Solan, H.P., in the defendants’ appeal vide judgment and decree dated 9.10.2007, passed in Civil Appeal No. 42-S/13 of 2007, titled as Union of India & another vs. Salig Ram Attri. 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. Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 3.5.2001. Defendants were directed to handover possession of the tenanted premises and pay a sum of Rs. 69,400/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization. Also a decree for mandatory injunction was passed directing the defendants to remove the antenna, earth-wire and pole from plaintiff’s adjoining land. Assailing the same, defendants preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Solan, H.P. which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 23-S/13 of 2000, titled as Union of India & another vs. Salig Ram Attri. Vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2001, the same was disposed of and only the decretal amount was reduced to Rs.57,400/-. Assailing the same, defendants preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Solan, H.P. which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 23-S/13 of 2000, titled as Union of India & another vs. Salig Ram Attri. Vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2001, the same was disposed of and only the decretal amount was reduced to Rs.57,400/-. Still assailing the same, defendants filed RSA No. 196 of 2002. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of this appeal, possession of the tenanted premises as also adjoining land, encroached upon by the defendants stands handed over to the plaintiff. 6. On 31.7.2003, plaintiff instituted another suit, which is subject matter of present appeal, seeking recovery of mesne profits @ Rs.46,000/- p.m. for the period 31.7.2000 to 31.7.2002. He also claimed Rs.50,000/- for damage caused to the tenanted premises. 7. Based on respective pleadings of the parties, in this suit, trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profit @ 46,000/- P.M. for the period 31.7.2000 to 31.7.2002, alongwith interest? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of damages caused to the premises of the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether the matter is subjudice before the Hon’ble High Court in RSA No. 196 of 2002, titled as Union of India Vs. Salig Ram Attri, if so, to what effect? OPD 4. Relief. 8. Trial Court decreed this suit in the following terms:- “Keeping in view my discussion and findings on issues above, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with proportionate costs. It is held that the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs. 2000/-per month as mesne profit w.e.f. 31.7.2000 to 31.7.2002, total comes out Rs. 48,000/- along with interest at a rate of Rs. 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. It is further held that the plaintiff is entitled for damages in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-along with interest at a rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till its realization. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file after its completion be consigned to the record room.” 9. It is further held that the plaintiff is entitled for damages in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-along with interest at a rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till its realization. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file after its completion be consigned to the record room.” 9. Appeal filed by the defendants stands partly allowed to the following effect: - “In view of my discussion and conclusion on point No.1 above, the appeal is allowed partly to the extent that compensation with respect to the damages is reduced to Rs. 5000/- from Rs. 10,000/- as granted by the learned trial court and the rest of the relief granted shall remain as it is. Decree be drawn accordingly. Lower court record be sent back with a copy of this judgment and the file after completion be consigned to records.” 10. The instant appeal stands admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the Courts below have erred in holding that the Regular Second Appeal is not the continuation of the proceedings and that despite the pendency of the Regular Second Appeal the previous suit could be considered to be finally disposed off? 2. Whether the Courts below have erred in deciding the suit without any evidence on record simply on the basis of the decision on a previously instituted suit which had yet not attained finality? 3. Whether the courts below have erred by entertaining the suit without statutory compliance of notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C.? 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that question No. 1 does not arise for consideration at all. Plaintiff had filed separate suits. First suit was for recovery of possession and arrears of rent/mesne profits for the period ending April, 1998, whereas the second suit was filed for recovery of mesne profits for a subsequent period and damages caused to the premises. As such, pendency of earlier suit would not constitute a bar from filing a subsequent suit for a totally different and separate period of time and cause of action. 12. Insofar as substantial question No. 2 is concerned, it is found that the amount quantified is on the basis of evidence led by the parties. As such, pendency of earlier suit would not constitute a bar from filing a subsequent suit for a totally different and separate period of time and cause of action. 12. Insofar as substantial question No. 2 is concerned, it is found that the amount quantified is on the basis of evidence led by the parties. Plaintiff himself appeared as PW-1 and proved the market value at which the premises could have been let out. Transaction being commercial in nature, as such, there is no error in awarding interest @ 12% per annum. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be said to be perverse, illegal or not borne out from the record. 13. Insofar as substantial question No. 3 is concerned, it be only observed that with the expiry of lease period, plaintiff served a legal notice (Ext. PW-1/A), proved in earlier suit. Plaintiff called upon the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the premises and pay arrears of rent/mesne profits. Significantly in the instant suit, defendants did not take any objection qua non-issuance of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. Also no such issue was framed by the court below. This plea was also not taken before the lower appellate Court. As such, it cannot be said that suit field by the plaintiff was not maintainable. Institution of proceedings itself serves the purpose of notice and sufficient compliance of spirit of relevant statute. 14. 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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.