JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 96 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 23.03.2009 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Jodhpur, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed by the trial court. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: plaintiff Bhagwati Narayan filed a suit for possession and mesne profit against the appellants defendants, inter alia, with the averments that suit property a plot of land described in para 1 of the plaint situated at village Bawari on Jodhpur Nagaur road was let out w.e.f. 01.04.1967 by plaintiff, his mother Smt. Parwati and his brother Ganesh Narayan to defendants - Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distributing 1 Company India Limited by three separate lease deeds for land admeasuring 5000 sq. ft., 7000 sq.ft. and 5000 sq.ft. respectively, which lease deeds were executed on 24.10.1967 and were registered on 30.11.1967; the assets of the lessee were transferred to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited pursuant to Burmah Shell Acquisition Act, 1976; the lease was for a period of 20 years 1 and, inter alia, provided for renewal of the lease for a further period of 20 years to commence from the date of expiry at the same terms and conditions in all respects as reserved and contained therein; the lease got renewed for the period 01.04.1987 to 31.03.2007, whereafter the plaintiff through his Advocate informed the defendants that he was not interested 2 in renewal of the lease deed; the defendants wanted to renew the lease for 20 years, for which, they have no right; after expiry of lease when the vacant possession was not handed over, notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('the Act') was issued on 10.09.2007 terminating the tenancy and directing handing over of the possession 2 aiongwith mesne profit; mesne profit from the date of expiry was claimed at Rs. 50,000/- per month; however, no reply to the notice was given and, therefore, the suit was being filed seeking possession; it was also indicated in the plaint that Smt. Parwati lessor has died and plaintiff is her and the land let out by Ganesh Narayan Rathi has been received by 3 plaintiff by way of family agreement based on which, the Gram Panchayat has issued Patta in plaintiff's favour including the land leased to Smt. Parwati and Ganesh Narayan and, therefore, the plaintiff is owner of the land and is entitled to possession; it was prayed that the possession of the suit property be handed over to the plaintiff and for the period 01.04.2007 : to 31.10.2007 mesne profit for use and occupation at Rs. 10,000/- per month be decreed. 3. A written statement was filed by the appellants disputing the averments made in the plaint; the appellants disputed the right of the plaintiff to file the suit qua the entire land admeasuring 17000 sq.ft. it was, interalia, contended that the plaintiff had right qua 5000 sq.ft. only and as no document aiongwith the plaint has been filed indicating that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the suit property, he was not entitled to claim possession; the Patta dated 25.03.1988 issued by the Gram Panchayat, Bawari in plaintiff's favour was disputed indicating that such a Patta could not be issued as initial Patta in favour of Smt. Parwati, Ganesh Narayan and the plaintiff was already in existence and the same was, therefore, void; the claim of mesne profit at Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 10,000/- per month was also denied; ultimately, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. The trial court framed six issues; on behalf of the plaintiff Bhagwati Narayan - plaintiff himself appeared as witness and exhibited 27 documents on behalf of the defendants neither oral nor documentary evidence was produced. 5. 50,000/- Rs. 10,000/- per month was also denied; ultimately, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. The trial court framed six issues; on behalf of the plaintiff Bhagwati Narayan - plaintiff himself appeared as witness and exhibited 27 documents on behalf of the defendants neither oral nor documentary evidence was produced. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that from the conduct of the defendants and omission on their part establishes that the objection raised in the written statement regarding right of the plaintiff was baseless; the defendants as tenants have no right to question the issuance of Patta in favour of the plaintiff and claim the same to be void; despite expiry of the lease deed and notice, the defendants have not vacated the suit premises; the plaintiff was entitled to mesne profit @ Rs. 10,000/- per month after expiry of lease deed; the other legal representatives of Smt. Parwati and legal representatives of Ganesh Narayan were not necessary parties to the suit and ultimately directed the plaintiff to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within a period of two months and directed payment of mesne profit w.e.f. 01.04.2007 @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the trial court fell in error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff; initially the lease of the suit property was granted by three different persons by way of three separate lease deeds, the plaintiff without establishing his title to the entire suit property was not entitled to maintain the suit and the same was liable to be dismissed on that count alone; besides making oral averments, the plaintiff did not place on record any document indicating family settlement, whereby, the suit property i.e. the part of the land leased by Smt. Parwati and Shri Ganesh Narayan came to the share of the plaintiff and, therefore, the trial court was not justified in decreeing the suit; the reliance placed on Patta (Exhibit-1) is wholly baseless as the Patta issued by Gram Panchayat, Bawari is apparently against the provisions of law; the award of mesne profit @ Rs. 10,000/- per month is highly excessive and has no basis and, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court deserve to be set aside. 7. 10,000/- per month is highly excessive and has no basis and, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court deserve to be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that the conduct of the Public Sector Undertaking in seeking to hold on to a leased property after expiry of the lease period only in the nature of a trespasser cannot be sustained; the appellants have failed to point out any right to remain in possession of the suit property; it was submitted that the trial court after thoroughly scrutinising the evidence led by the plaintiff has come to a conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit and the said finding based on exhaustive reasons does not call for any interference; the appellants-defendants chose not to lead any evidence either oral or documentary and merely indulged in questioning the title of the plaintiff, which inquiry even otherwise, is alien to a suit for eviction; the status of the plaintiff as landlord is well established and, therefore, the judgment impugned does not call for any interference; it was submitted that the property in question was leased out in the year 1967 for a meager rent of Rs. 150/- per month and for a land admeasuring 17000 sq.ft. on Jodhpur-Jaipur Highway, the award of mesne profit at Rs. 10,000/- cannot be questioned by the appellants, in fact the amount of award is substantially on the lower side; it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed with costs. 8. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 9. It is not in dispute that the suit property admeasuring 17000 sq.ft. was let out by Smt. Parwati, Ganesh Narayan and plaintiff by way of registered sale deeds dated 24.10.1967 (Exhibits-2 to 4) w.e.f. 01.04.1967 and the appellants are operating a retail outlet on the said location ever since; from the averments made in the plaint and documents available on record, it appears that the initial lease was for a period of 20 years aiongwith renewal clause for a further period of 20 years at the same terms and conditions; the lease rent initially was Rs. 20/- per month for each lease i.e. Rs. 60/- for the entire land, which appear to have been enhanced to Rs. 50/- per month for each lease deed i.e. Rs. 20/- per month for each lease i.e. Rs. 60/- for the entire land, which appear to have been enhanced to Rs. 50/- per month for each lease deed i.e. Rs. 150/- for the entire land w.e.f. 01.01.1972; the lease period indicated in the lease deed dated 24.10.1967 came to an end on 31.03.1987, whereafter, it appear that though no fresh lease deed was executed, by dint of the renewal clause contained in the lease deed, the same stood renewed for another 20 years and on 31.03.2007 the leases stood determined by efflux of time limited in the lease deed in terms of Section 111 (a) of the Act; it appears that during the currency of the lease deed a family settlement came to be executed among Smt. Parvati, Ganesh Narayan and plaintiff; in pursuance whereof, the Gram Panchayat, Bawari issued a Patta dated 25.03.1988 (Exhibit-1) of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff Bhagwati Narayan. 10. Before expiry of the lease period on 31.03.2007, the plaintiff vide Exhibit-5 gave a notice to the appellants indicating that he was not interested in any further renewal of the lease deed and sought possession at the end of the lease period; the plaintiff claimed possession of the entire land based on the Patta issued in his favour by the Gram Panchayat; the said notice Exhibit-5 dated 16.03.2007 was replied on 03.04.2007 by the appellants vide Exhibit-15, wherein, inter alia, the defendants indicated as under:- "As your client is aware that we had been paying the rentals to the respective owners right from the inception of lease without any delay or default. Subsequent to the death of Smt. Parvati Devi, her rental was paid to your client Sh. Bhagwati Narain Rathi w.e.f. 1.4.2004 on the basis of the documents submitted and indemnity bond executed by your client. However, your client had not submitted any title documents in support of his claim of acquiring/owing the land owned by Sh. Ganesh Narain Rathi pursuant to his death." 11. Bhagwati Narain Rathi w.e.f. 1.4.2004 on the basis of the documents submitted and indemnity bond executed by your client. However, your client had not submitted any title documents in support of his claim of acquiring/owing the land owned by Sh. Ganesh Narain Rathi pursuant to his death." 11. Before issuance of the notice Exhibit-5 and reply Exhibit-15 the appellants had offered the plaintiff alone vide letter dated 21.-08-2006 (Exhibit-16) to have a lease for another period of 20 years at the same rental terms and conditions as contained in the existing lease agreement; which was replied by the plaintiff on 03.11.2006 (Exhibit-17) seeking possession of the suit property, on expiry of the lease agreement; on 01.09.2007 the plaintiff issued notice under Section 106 of the Act (Exhibit-19), inter alia, indicating the determination of lease on efflux of time and terminating the same; the notice, inter alia, contained the following relevant aspect:- " 8- ;g gS fd tks Hkwfe fdjk;s ij nh xbZ mlesa ls Jherh ikoZrh nsoh dk nsgkUr gks pqdk gS esjk eqofDdy gh mudk okfjl gS vkSj iapk;r }kjk Hkwfe dk iV~Vk Hkh esjs eqofdy ds uke ls tkjh gks pqdk gSA x.ks'k ukjk;.k jkBh ls tks Hkwfe vkius fdjk;s ij yh Fkh] ikfjokfjd le>kSrs esa og Hkwfe Hkh esjs eqofDdy dks gh izkIr gqbZ gS vkSj mijksDr vk/kkj ij xzke iapk;r }kjk ml Hkwfe dk iV~Vk Hkh esjs eqofDdy ds uke ls gh tkjh fd;k] lsogou ls 17000 oxZ QhV dh txg 15000 oxZ QhV dk iV~Vk fn;k x;kA 9- ;g gS fd vki }kjk esjs eqofDdy dks mijksDr Hkwfe dk ekfyd o ys.MyksMZ ekudj esjs eqofDdy dks gh fdjk;k vnk dj jgs gSa vkSj bl izdkj esjk eqofDdy gh vkidk ys.M yksMZ gS vkSj vki }kjk fujUrj fdjk;k yht dh vof/k rd esjs eqofDdy dks vnk fd;k x;kA " No reply to the said notice under Section 106 of the Act was given by the appellants-defendants; in the additional pleas contained in the written statement, though the title for the entire land of the plaintiff was questioned, it was indicated by the appellants as under:- " ;g gS fd izfroknh la[;k 1 ls 4 us oknh dks okn in la[;k 1 esa of.kZr Hkwfe ,oa iV~Vk la[;k 480] fely la[;k 156@1987&88 iV~Vk fnukad 25-03-1988 dks drbZ iV~Vs ij ugha fy;k Fkk vFkkZr oknh iV~Vklqn tk;nkn dk ekfyd ugha gS D;ksafd iwoZ esa tc izfroknhx.k us Hkwfe iV~Vs ij yh Fkh rks rhu fHkUu&fHkUu iV~Vksa ds tfj;s 20 o"kZ ds fy;s fdjk;s ij yh Fkh] rRi'pkr~ bl vof/k dks vkSj c<+k fn;k x;k] blh nkSjku iV~Vk nsfgrk dk nsgkUr gks x;k ,oe~ muds mRrjkf/kdkfj;ksa us fdjk;k ysus ds fy, oknh dks vf/kd`r dj j[kk Fkk vFkkZr~ os Lo;a iV~Vk nsfgrk ds fof/kd mRrjkf/kdkjh gSa] ijUrq oknh us dwVjfpr rjhds ls ;g okn izLrqr fd;k gS ftlesa iV~Vk nsfgrk ds mRrjkf/kdkjh dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;k gS] blfy;s okn oknh mudh vuqifLFkfr esa drbZ pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA " 12. On behalf of the plaintiff by way of documentary evidence Patta (Exhibit-1), the lease deeds (Exhibits-2, 3 and 4) and the entire correspondence exchanged between the parties were exhibited and he himself appeared in the witness box; several questions were put to the plaintiff, however, nothing material regarding the issue sought to be raised could be extracted by the defendants; however, on part of the defendants neither any oral nor any documentary evidence was placed before the trial court and the trial court by its impugned judgment came to the conclusion as noticed hereinbefore. 13. Even in the first appeal filed by the appellants, the part of the ground, material to the present controversy, reads as under:- "It is further submitted that the fact of paying rent to the respondent by the appellants for whole of the land cannot be termed as Attornment on the part of the appellants because the appellants have started paying rent to the respondent after getting an indemnify bond. It is also pertinent to note that if the appellants have paid the rent to the respondent till the title holders of the land in question have not objected, then this fact alone cannot be taken as an act of Attornment on the part of the appellants. The learned trial Court has not taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter and has decided the issue No.1 in favour of the respondent in a mechanical manner." 14. From the averments made in the written statement, the reply of the appellants dated 03.04.2007 (Exhibit-15), the contents of notice dated 01.09.2007 by the plaintiff under Section 106 CPC (Exhibit-19) and the ground raised in the appeal it is not in dispute that the appellants-defendants have been paying lease rent of Rs. 150/- per month for the entire land admeasuring 17000 sq.ft. comprised in the lease deeds Exhiblts-2, 3 and 4 to plaintiff Bhagwati Narayan only; the plea sought to be raised in the present appeal is that the same does not amount to attornment in favour of the plaintiff as the amount of lease rent was paid to the plaintiff after obtaining indemnity bond. The attornment under the Act is governed by provision of Section 109 of the Act. 15. The attornment under the Act is governed by provision of Section 109 of the Act. 15. Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the said aspect in Uppalapati Veera Venkata Satyanarayanaraju v. Josyula Hanumayamma : AIR 1967 SC 174 observed and held as under:- "(14)" Attornment, in its strict sense, is an agreement of the tenant to a grant of the reversion made by the landlord to another, or, as it has been defined, 'the act of the tenants putting one person in the place of another as his landlord" - see paragraph 732, Foa's General Law of Landlord and Tenant. This means that in the first instance attornment is made in favour of the person who has derived his title or supposed title from the original landlord. It implies a continuity of the tenancy created by the original landlord in favour of the tena/it. It is in these circumstances that the existing tenant, for the rest of the period of his tenancy, agrees to acknowledge the new landlord as his landlord. Such an agreement of the tenant amounts to attornment and by such an attornment the tenant by his act substitutes the new landlord in place of the previous one. Such attornment is complete the moment the tenant agrees to acknowledge the new landlord to be his landlord. Any future payment or non-payment of rent does not affect the relationship created by the attornment. The new landlord will have his remedies with respect to the rents falling in arrears. (15) Again, it is stated in paragraph 745 at page 475: "With regard to the title of person from whom the possession was not obtained, but who has been recognised as landlord by the tenant, such recognition may be by express agreement, by attornment, or other formal acknowledgment (as by paying a nominal sum of money), by payment of rent, or of a nominal sum as rent, or by submission to a distress." The attornment is here described as one mode of recognising a person as one's landlord, just as payment of rent is another mode for the purpose. Expression to similar effect is to be found in paragraphs 746, and also 747 where it is further noted: "But the tenant is not allowed to impeach the title of a person to whom he has paid rent, or whose title he has otherwise recognised, without, showing a better title in some other person. Thus he can not, after attorning to a person who derives his title under a will, contend merely that upon a true construction of the will he had no title; nor can he, after paying him rent, dispute his title merely on the ground that the devise to him was void, owing to the incapacity of the testator." (16) In Krisna Proshad Lai Singha Deo v. Baraboni Coal Concern 64 Ind App 311:( AIR 1937 PC 251 ) the Privy Council said at page 318, when considering the scope of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act: "Whether during the currency of a term the tenant by attornment to A who claims to have the reversion, or the landlord by acceptance of rent from B who claims to be entitled to the term, is estopped from disputing the claim which he has once admitted, are important questions, but they are instances of cases which are outside Section 116 altogether." And again, at page 319 : "In the ordinary case of a lease intended as a present demise - which is the case before the Board on this appeal - the section applies against the lessee, any assignee of the term and any sub-lessee or licencee. What all such persons are precluded from denying is that the lessor had a title at the date of the lease, and there is no exception even for the case where the lease itself discloses the defect of title. The principle does not apply to disentitle a tenant to dispute the derivative title of one who claims to have since become entitled to the reversion, though in such cases there may be other grounds of estoppel, e.g., by attornment, acceptance of rent etc. The principle does not apply to disentitle a tenant to dispute the derivative title of one who claims to have since become entitled to the reversion, though in such cases there may be other grounds of estoppel, e.g., by attornment, acceptance of rent etc. In this sense it is true enough that the principle only applies to the title of the landlord who 'let the tenant in' as distinct from any other person claiming to be reversioner." (17) These observations make it clear that simply by attornment the tenant is estopped from questioning the derivative title of the claimant's successor just as the acceptance of rent will create an estoppel against the landlord from denying the person, who paid the rent, to be his tenant. There observations do not indicate that any actual payment of rent by the tenant who has attorned is necessary to make the attornment effective. If it was otherwise, the new landlord in whose favour the tenant has, attorned, will not be able to take successfully any action against that person till that person had made the first payment of rent. (18) I am, therefore, of opinion that once the tenant has agreed to accept the person claiming title from the previous landlord, that amounts to effective attornment in favour of the landlord and is no more dependent on the future conduct of the tenant by way of payment of rent or otherwise." 16. Following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.V.V. Satyanarayanaraju (supra) this Court in Hari Ram v. Lajpat Bhan : 1975 RLW 96 , wherein, after death of the landlord the plaintiff used to recover rent and the rent receipts were also issued by him, a objection was raised by the tenant that the rent was paid to the plaintiff not in his right as sole heir of the landlord, but under the instructions of other co-heirs, the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit, it was held that the defendant had recognised the plaintiff as his landlord and had been consistently paying rent to him after the death of original landlord and the existing lease was continued with the substitution of the plaintiff as a new landlord in place of the old deceased landlord and the issuance of notice and filing of the suit by the plaintiff was 1 held valid and proper. 17. 17. In the present case, from the facts, pleadings, contents of the documents exhibited clearly reveal that the appellants have, been consistently paying the rent for the entire land to the plaintiff and at no ! stage his right to receive the rent was questioned by them; the attornment qua the land leased out by Smt. Parvati and Ganesh Narayan by the appellants to the plaintiff is clearly established on record; it was clearly indicated in the reply (Exhibit- 15) quoted hereinbefore that the said attornment was based on documents submitted and indemnity bond i1 executed; merely because the attornment was based on the execution of Indemnity bond, as contained in the grounds of appeal, It cannot be said that the appellants had not attorned to the plaintiff; it Is not the case of the defendants- appellants that anyone other than the plaintiff at any stage claim the payment of rent and/or possession of the suit property claiming 1 himself to be the landlord, which appears to be the only purpose of obtaining indemnity bond. 18. Though it is open for a tenant to question the derivative title of the person claiming to be landlord in a suit for eviction and said plea would not be prohibited under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, once a 5 tenant attorns to a landlord after his having derived the title from the previous landlords, in those circumstances, a tenant is estopped from questioning even the derivative title of the plaintiff as clearly laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 17 of its judgment in the case of U.V.V. Satyanarayanaraju (supra). 19. In the case of Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath & Ors. : 1977 (1) SCR 395 the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the general law, in a suit between the landlord and tenant, the question of title to the leased property is irrelevant and, therefore, it was inconceivable to throw out the suit on account of non- impleadment of other co-owners as such, specially in view of the clear acknowledgment and admission of the defendants that plaintiff was their landlord. . - 20. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the trial court committed any mistake in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was the landlord of the entire land comprised in Exhibits-2, 3 and 4. 21. . - 20. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the trial court committed any mistake in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was the landlord of the entire land comprised in Exhibits-2, 3 and 4. 21. So far as the validity of Patta (Exhibit-1) sought to be questioned by the appellants is concerned, it is surprising that though the appellants could not gather enough courage to claim any right in the suit property and have admitted their possession as tenants in pursuant to lease deeds Exhibits-2, 3 and 4, apparently, only with a view to hold on to the leased property despite determination of the lease deeds by efflux of time against the wishes of the landlord, the plea questioning the validity of Patta (Exhibit-1) has been raised. It is well settled that in a suit based on landlord tenant relationship, the issue as to the title and/or validity of the title of the landlord is wholly irrelevant and it is not open for the tenant to question the same having acted on the said title. 22. The fact that the appellants did not enter the witness-box and lead any evidence whatsoever on the plea sought to be raised by them, the important aspect as to based on what documents, the rent of the suit property, part of which, was let out by Smt. Parvati and Ganesh Narayan was being paid to the plaintiff, regarding which, a reference has been made in the reply given by the appellants (Exhibit-15), apparently could not be put to the defendants and brought on record. From evidence available on record, it is apparent that w.e.f. 01.04.2004 based on certain documents, the appellants chose to make payment of rent to the plaintiff clearly included the Patta (Exhibit-1), which was issued in the year 1988 and to which a reference has been made in ail the correspondence Exhibit-5 and Exhibit-19 made by the plaintiff. 23. In view of the above discussions, the attempt on the part of the appellants to question the validity of Exhibit-1 has no basis and the plea is, therefore, rejected. 24. So far as the award of mesne profit @ Rs. 23. In view of the above discussions, the attempt on the part of the appellants to question the validity of Exhibit-1 has no basis and the plea is, therefore, rejected. 24. So far as the award of mesne profit @ Rs. 10,000/- per month awarded by the trial court after the lease period came to an end on 31.03.2007 is concerned, the plaintiff made specific averments in the plaint, which were denied by the appellants in the written statement, the plaintiff appeared as PW-1 and reiterated the averments regarding the rate of mesne profit and claimed that mesne profit to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-was liable to be paid by the appellants; however, the defendants did not enter the witness box; the trial court based on the fact that the suit land was admeasuring 17000 sq.ft., retail outlet was being operated since 1967 and the land was situated on Jodhpur Jaipur Highway, awarded the mesne profit @ Rs. 10,000/- per month, the amount on which, the appellants had paid the Court fees. The award of mesne profit for a huge land admeasuring 17000 sq.ft. on the National Highway, which as per the evidence available on record is surrounded by shops and other commercial establishments, cannot be said to be excessive by any stretch of imagination and, as such, the plea raised by the appellants being wholly baseless, is rejected. 25. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants had submitted that in case the plea raised by the appellants is not accepted, they may be granted extra time to vacate the suit premises. It was submitted that appellants are operating the retail outlet for almost 47 years now and, therefore, it would take them some time to relocate the said outlet. 26. Counsel for the plaintiff opposed the said plea and it was submitted that looking to the conduct of the appellants the appellants are not at all entitled to claim any such indulgence from this Court. The plaintiff had issued notice well in advance before the expiry of the lease period, however, the defendants not only persisted with their possession but also questioned the title of the plaintiff and, therefore, no indulgence should be granted. 27. The plaintiff had issued notice well in advance before the expiry of the lease period, however, the defendants not only persisted with their possession but also questioned the title of the plaintiff and, therefore, no indulgence should be granted. 27. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties on the aspect of granting extra time to the appellants for vacating the suit premises, it is true that the conduct of the appellants in seeking to hold on to the suit property despite the determination of lease by efflux of time and the landlord being not interested in renewal of the lease cannot be appreciated, however, the fact that the appellants are in possession and are operating the retail outlet at the suit site for over 45 years is a relevant consideration for the purpose of grant of time and in view of the fact that according to plaintiff's own contention the area in and around the retail outlet is now commercialized and is thickly populated, the appellants, in case they want to set up another retail outlet, would require some reasonable time for the said purpose, it is deemed appropriate that the appellants are granted time till 31.03.2015 to vacate the suit premises. 28. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal filed by the appellants and the same is, therefore, dismissed with costs. However, the appellants are granted time to vacate the suit premises by 31.03.2015 on the following terms and conditions (i) the appellants shall submit an undertaking supported by affidavit before the trial court within 3 weeks from today to the effect that on or before 31.03.2015 they shall handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff-respondent. They shall also undertake not to cause any damage to the suit premises nor to make any alternation and not to assign/sublet or in any manner part with possession to nay other person and not to put the premises to any use other than the present use and not to cause any nuisance. (ii) the appellants shall deposit within three weeks the arrears, if any, of the rent/mesne profit and of the decretal amount and shall further continue to pay to the landlord the amount for use and occupation of the suit premises @ Rs. (ii) the appellants shall deposit within three weeks the arrears, if any, of the rent/mesne profit and of the decretal amount and shall further continue to pay to the landlord the amount for use and occupation of the suit premises @ Rs. 10,000/- per month or deposit the same in the saving bank account of the respondent month by month on or before 15th day of the next month. The respondent or learned counsel for the respondent will give the details of the bank account, in which, the arrears of rent or mesne profit/month to month mesne profit will be deposited, to the appellants or counsel for the appellants within a period of two weeks from today. (iii) it is made clear that in case the appellants do not comply with any of the aforesaid conditions or violate any terms of the undertaking, then it will be open for the respondent landlord to get the decree executed forthwith in accordance with law. Appeal Dismissed. *******