1. Judgment and Decree dated 12.09.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup at Guwahati has been brought under challenge in the present First Appeal by the defendants. By the impugned judgment and decree the learned trial court decreed the suit for realisation of Rs.4,66,344/- from the defendants as arrear rent along with a sum of Rs.15,691/- as interest till the institution of the suit and also for future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation. By filing this First Appeal the defendants have challenged the impugned judgment and decree. 2. The plaintiff M/s Sitaram Properties and Shyam Sundar Properties represented by Sri Laxmi Narayan Bidawatka instituted Title Suit No.15 of 2000 against the Bank of Baroda and its authorities for declaration and for realisation of Rs.28,84,975/-. Pleaded story of the plaintiff is that the defendants hired first floor of the RCC building of the plaintiff on monthly rent for its branch at a rental of Rs.3/- per Sq. Ft. per month by request letter dated 27.09.1982. This tenancy was for a period of 5 years with option to renew for further period of 5 years on mutually agreed enhanced rate. Accordingly, the defendants took over possession of the tenants' premises on 15.01.1983 as a tenant under the plaintiff and continued possessing the same for 5 years. Thereafter, an agreement was executed on 17.02.1989 between the same parties for another period of 5 years with effect from 03.09.1988 with further renewal clause for 5 years on a mutually agreed enhanced rate. On this agreement the rental was enhanced to Rs.4.20 per Sq. Ft. per month and thus, the total monthly rent was calculated at Rs.20,856/- for the said period. After expiry of the second term of tenancy a fresh agreement was executed on 17.02.1989 and thereupon, the monthly rent was enhanced to Rs.32,004/-. The tenancy was further extended with effect from 03.09.1993 to 02.09.1998 for another spell of 5 years by enhancing the rental at the rate of Rs.5.60 per Sq.Ft. per month for the area measuring 5080 Sq. Ft including stair case and the other terms and conditions of the earlier agreement dated 17.02.1989 was admitted to be maintained by the parties. After expiry of the last tenure, defendants again made a request by letter dated 28.04.1998 for extending the period of tenancy. per month for the area measuring 5080 Sq. Ft including stair case and the other terms and conditions of the earlier agreement dated 17.02.1989 was admitted to be maintained by the parties. After expiry of the last tenure, defendants again made a request by letter dated 28.04.1998 for extending the period of tenancy. But when the negotiation between the parties for new rate of tenancy was going on plaintiff received a letter dated 26.08.1998 from the defendants proposing to pay Rs.11/- per Sq. Ft. per month. The plaintiff by his reply dated 26.08.1998 accepted the proposal with effect from 03.09.1998 and expressed that eviction notice already issued to the defendants would stand withdrawn thereby. Although no formal agreement was executed by the parties but the defendants by a letter dated 31.12.1999 informed the plaintiff on 04.01.2000 that they would vacate the premises on 31.01.2000 and requested to depute their agent with effect from 15.01.2000 when operation of shifting their belongings would begin. The defendants did not shift all the belongings on 31.01.2000 and left some furnitures inside but stopped paying rent. Moreover, they also caused damage to the suit premises at the time of shifting. With all these averments on fact, the plaintiff not only demanded arrear rent of Rs.4,66,344/- being the difference between the enhanced rate of rent at Rs.11/- per Sq. Ft. per month. Ft., but they also claimed compensation for causing damage to the suit premises along with interest. The plaintiff prayed that a decree be passed declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to monthly rent @ 11 per Sq. Ft with effect from 03.09.1998 till January 2000 which comes to Rs.27,432/- and for realization of interest @ 15% per Sq. Ft. on the arrear of monthly rent which comes to Rs.15,691/-, realization of Rs.24,02,840/- being the quantum of the compensation of damage caused by the defendants and also for interest @ 15% per annum pendente lite for the future on the whole amount. 3. On being summoned the defendants appeared and submitted written statement taking usual plea of objection on maintainability as well as on merit. According to the defendants the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and the same is barred by limitation, that the suit is barred by principles of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence and for defect of parties and even the suit premises is not identifiable etc. According to the defendants the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and the same is barred by limitation, that the suit is barred by principles of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence and for defect of parties and even the suit premises is not identifiable etc. The defendants also raised issue of locus standi of the plaintiff saying that the plaintiff failed to disclose as to whether it was a partnership firm or a proprietarial one. If the plaintiff is a partnership firm, then being not registered under Partnership Act is not entitled to file a suit because of bar under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. On merit, it is the case of the defendants that the statements made in the plaint are correct and that the defendants only proposed to raise the rent to Rs.11/- per Sq. Ft per month etc. With these averments the defendants prayed that the suit be dismissed with cost. Upon perusal of the rival contention of the parties, the learned trial court framed following 5 issues. 4. Thereafter by order dated 11.09.2007 amended issue No.2 as follows: Whether the defendants had vacated the suit premises after due notice to the plaintiff? 5. In course of trial both the plaintiff and the defendants examined one witness each on their behalf and adduced documentary evidence. The learned trial court after perusal of the evidence adduced by the parties passed the impugned judgment and decree. The learned trial court decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff holding that there was cause of action. Coming to issue No.2 the learned trial court decided issue in favour of the defendants holding that the defendants vacated the premises after due notice to the plaintiff. Taking note of Exhibit-18, learned trial court observed that the defendants informed the plaintiff before vacating the suit premises with effect from 31.01.2000. According to the learned trial court tenancy being monthly one, the defendants were entitled to terminate the same by a notice of 15 days. Thus, the issue No.2 was decided in favour of the defendants. Issue No.3 is the principal issue of dispute between the parties. The learned trial court found that by Exhibit-15 the plaintiff offered to renew the lease with effect from 03.09.1998 at the rent of Rs.12/- per Sq. Ft per month. Thus, the issue No.2 was decided in favour of the defendants. Issue No.3 is the principal issue of dispute between the parties. The learned trial court found that by Exhibit-15 the plaintiff offered to renew the lease with effect from 03.09.1998 at the rent of Rs.12/- per Sq. Ft per month. From Exhibit-16 it appears that there was discussion in between the parties in the meantime and the plaintiff had agreed to accept rental @ 11 per Sq. Ft per month and accordingly, the defendants requested the plaintiff by Exhibit-16 to confirm the same rate of rent in writing and to withdraw the legal notice of eviction. The copy of legal notice was exhibited as Exhibit- 10, whereby the plaintiff had asked the defendants to vacate the suit premises on or before 02.09.1998. Exhibit-17 is the letter in respect to Exhibit-16 addressed to the plaintiff by the defendants whereby the plaintiff ultimately confirmed to accept rent @ 11 Per Sq Ft. per month with effect from 03.09.1998. The learned trial court considered the evidence adduced by D.W.1 Sujoy Bhattacharjee, a Senior Manager of the defendant's bank. He had admitted in course of cross examination that Exhibit-16 was a proposal by the defendant to the plaintiff for settlement of rent @ 11 per Sq. Ft. per month and it was accepted by the plaintiff vide Exhibit-17. This witness also admitted that the plaintiff became entitled to enhance rent @ 11 per Sq. Ft. per month till 31.01.2000 i.e. the date when the defendants had vacated the suit premises. With these findings the learned trial court assessed that the plaintiff became entitled to rent at enhanced rate for 17 months with effect from 03.09.1998 to 31.01.2000 from Rs.5.60 per Sq. Ft per month to Rs.11 per Sq. Ft. per month and thus, the entitlement of the plaintiff came to Rs.4,66,344/-. This is because the defendants had actually paid Rs.4,83,616/-in 17 months @ 5.60 per Sq. Ft where plaintiff was entitled to get Rs.9,49,960/- for the same period @ 11 per Sq. Ft per month. The learned trial court also decreed the claim of the plaintiff for interest of Rs.15,691/- on the whole amount and future interest @ 6% per annum form the date of institution of the suit till realisation. Ft where plaintiff was entitled to get Rs.9,49,960/- for the same period @ 11 per Sq. Ft per month. The learned trial court also decreed the claim of the plaintiff for interest of Rs.15,691/- on the whole amount and future interest @ 6% per annum form the date of institution of the suit till realisation. The aforesaid judgment and decree has been passed after considering as many as 28 documents adduced by the plaintiff and 4 documents adduced by the defendants apart from the oral evidence of one witness on each side. These defendants raised yet another issue in Paragraph-48(g) of the written statement. The defendants stated that after the suit premises was vacated by them, the plaintiff let out the suit premises to the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur with effect from December 2001 at a monthly rent of approximately Rs.8 to 9 per Sq. Ft. By saying this the defendants wanted to claim that they are not liable to make payment of Rs.11 per Sq. Ft. But in course of cross examination, P.W.1 admitted that the suit premises were let out to the Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur with effect from January 2002 at a rental of Rs.9 per Sq. Ft per month. Be that as it may, it is a matter of contract between the land lord and tenant. If the owner agrees to let out the premises to some other tenant at a lesser rate, no one can raise any objection thereto. This amount of pleadings or the cross-examination of P.W.1, therefore, cannot have any adverse interference on the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants in regard to rate of rent of the tenancy between them. 6. I have hears Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appellant and Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the sole respondent. I have perused the exhibit adduced by the parties in addition to the depositions of P.W.1 and D.W.1 and pleadings of the parties. 7. After considering of the oral and documentary evidence of the parties what is conspicuous is that there was a landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff on one side and the defendants on the other. The tenancy was a monthly one and it had commenced in the year 1983. It was renewed on two occasions and accordingly, the last renewal period expired on 02.09.1998. The tenancy was a monthly one and it had commenced in the year 1983. It was renewed on two occasions and accordingly, the last renewal period expired on 02.09.1998. Although there was no formal extension thereafter yet the defendants went on holding over the suit premises by paying the rent payable on the date of expiry of the last terms i.e. @ Rs.5.60 per Sq. Ft. per month during this period i.e. last phase of expiry of the previous terms. Parties were actively contemplating to allow further terms of renewal and negotiation was going on in regard to fixing of rent. While plaintiff demanded Rs.12 per Sq. Ft. per month, the defendants did not agree to that on saying that it was on the higher side. Exhibit-15 shows demand of higher rent @ 12 per Sq. Ft. per month by the plaintiff but immediately thereafter the defendants appeared to have written a letter to the plaintiff on 26.08.1998 i.e. one week before expiry of the last terms agreeing to pay Rs.11 per Sq. Ft. per month. This letter has been exhibited as Exhibit-16 and recital of this letter shows that there was discussion between the parties in regard to settlement of rates and that the plaintiff allegedly had agreed to accept Rs.11 per Sq. Ft. per month during the course of the discussion. The defendants, therefore, by the aforesaid letter dated 26.08.1998 (Exhibit-16) requested the plaintiff to confirm the rate in writing so as to enable the defendants to inform the higher authority for formal renewal of the lease deed. On the same date the plaintiff issued reply confirming its approval to enhancement of rent @ 11 per Sq. Ft. per month. This confirmation letter dated 26.08.1998 has been exhibited as Exhibit-17. 8. Now the question arises that although by letter dated 26.08.1998 (Exhibit-17) plaintiff agreed to accept rent @ 11 per Sq. Ft. per month as was proposed by the defendants on the same date as per discussion between the parties but there was no formal agreement thereafter between the parties and so whether the defendants were liable to make payment at the enhanced rate. Ft. per month as was proposed by the defendants on the same date as per discussion between the parties but there was no formal agreement thereafter between the parties and so whether the defendants were liable to make payment at the enhanced rate. It appears that the defendants thereafter served a notice to the plaintiff on 31.12.1999 giving one month notice to vacate the suit premises within 31.07.2000 and requested the plaintiff to depute a representative on and from 15.01.2000 so as to oversee the shifting operation of the defendant's bank. The parties had agreed on 26.08.1998 to continue the tenancy at monthly rent of Rs.11 per Sq. Ft and language of Exhibit-16 & 17 show that parties were contemplating to reduce this agreement into writing in the form of lease deed. For some or other reason a formal lease deed was neither executed nor was the same registered and so apart from oral agreement between the parties for paying rental @ 11 per Sq. Ft. per month with effect from 03.09.1998 nothing is there on record. This tenancy between the parties is a one under Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 and the same does not require execution of a written agreement as an indispensible pre condition of a tenancy. Because of this special legislation the oral agreement between the parties accompanied by handing over of possession of the suit premises is sufficient to institute a tenancy. The tenant would continue enjoying the property on the basis of an oral agreement of the tenancy subject to the provision of Section 5 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. That being the position although there was no fresh lease deed or agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants with effect from 03.09.1998 pursuant to the settlement arrived at on 26.08.1998, parties were bound by the terms of the oral agreement and that is why the learned trial court has not committed any error in holding that the plaintiff became entitled to enhanced rate of rent with effect from 03.09.1998 till the defendants vacated the suit premises. Although the plaintiff claimed that the defendants did not vacate the premises entirely on 30.01.2000 but no evidence has been brought on record to support such contention. The learned trial court has not decreed the suit for any extended period beyond 31.01.2000. Although the plaintiff claimed that the defendants did not vacate the premises entirely on 30.01.2000 but no evidence has been brought on record to support such contention. The learned trial court has not decreed the suit for any extended period beyond 31.01.2000. The learned trial court found that the plaintiff is entitled to enhanced rent with effect from 03.09.1998 to 31.01.2000 @ 11 per Sq. Ft. per month, whereas the defendants paid rent @ 5.60 per Sq. Ft. per month. Calculating the quantum of unpaid rent, the learned trial court arrived at the finding that the defendants are liable to make the payment of Rs.4,66,344/- to the plaintiff for the aforesaid period of 17 months. Having considered the evidence led by the parties as referred to above and after perusal of the impugned judgment and decree, this Court does not find any reason to differ from the view held by the learned trial court. This Court confirms the findings that the plaintiff is entitled to enhance rent @ 11 per Sq. Ft. per month with effect from 03.09.1998 to 31.01.2000 and thus, the defendants are liable to make payment of Rs.4,66,344/- to the plaintiff. The learned trial court has decreed the suit for further interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of institution of the suit till realisation. There is no reason to differ from the said finding as well. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed. 9. No order as to costs.