Anil Kumar,J. Matter is taken up in the revised list. None appeared on behalf of the revisionist. 2. Heard Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned counsel for the respondent and perused record. 3. Controversy in the present case relates to a premises situated in Mall building no. 4, Ashok Marg, Lucknow. M/S. Chandra Agro Pvt. Ltd. is landlord of the said premises which has been let out to the Bank of India. The tenancy of the defendant / bank was month to month starting on Ist day of English calendar. 4. As the said building is not covered by the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 so the plaintiff sent a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to the Bank at its registered Head office at Mumbai as well as Lucknow office that the tenancy of the defendant in respect to the premises in question would come to end on the expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice by defendant. The Bank was further asked to vacate the premises in question after expiry of the period as given in the notice. In the notice, it is clearly mentioned that if the Bank does not vacate the possession of the premises in question then the plaintiff will charge damages for such illegal use and occupation at the rate as mentioned in the said notice per month till the plaintiff gets the possession of the said premises. 5. The said notice was served upon the Bank, in spite of the service of the notice and the termination of the tenancy as per the terms of the notice Bank had not delivered the possession and remain in occupation of the premises, so the M/S. Chandra Agro respondent- plaintiff filed as suit for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages registered as SCC Suit no. 21 of 1996 in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Lucknow. 6. After exchange of the pleadings as well as evidence the court below in order to decide the controversy involved in the case framed the following points : - (1)Relationship of the landlord and tenant, as the same is not disputed; (2)Rate of monthly rent, as the same is not disputed, (3)Legality of the notice dated 1.3.1996. 7. 6. After exchange of the pleadings as well as evidence the court below in order to decide the controversy involved in the case framed the following points : - (1)Relationship of the landlord and tenant, as the same is not disputed; (2)Rate of monthly rent, as the same is not disputed, (3)Legality of the notice dated 1.3.1996. 7. The points, which would be relevant to be decided as framed by the court below, are follows : - (1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the amount, as damages, as prayed for in the plaint? (2)To what relief the plaintiff is entitled ? 8. The Court below after hearing the learned counsel for parties on merit and taking into consideration the fact and material/evidence on record by judgment and decree dated 29.5.2003 allowed the suit. The operative portion quoted as under:- "The suit of the plaintiff for ejectment and damages is decreed with costs against the defendant. The plaintiff is also entitled to recover damages from the defendant for illegal use and occupation of the suit premises for 11.4.1996, i.e., one day being Rs.3733=00. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to recover pendenti lite and future damages from the defendant at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq. ft. of the covered area in possession of the defendant, for illegal use and occupation of the suit property, till the plaintiff gets the possession of the said premises, subject to payment of requisite court fees. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to receive interest on the amount of damages at the rate of 12% per annum." 9. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed. 10. As stated above, when the matter was taken in the revised cause list, neither respondent nor counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent to press the revision. 11. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed for want of prosecution. ______________