JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, in Civil Appeal No. 27 FTC/13 of 2007 dated 16.08.2007, vide which, learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal so filed by the present appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandaghat, in Civil Suit No. 47-K/1 of 2001 dated 31.07.2006, whereby learned trial Court had partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that the appellant/plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.28,696/- w.e.f. 01.07.1998 to 30.06.2001 @ Rs.700/- per mensem i.e. Rs.25,200/- as principal amount and Rs.3,496/- on account of interest @ 9% per annum, on the ground that the plaintiff was owner of a single storeyed house consisting of 2 rooms and 2 kitchen, situated below the Parkash Saw Mill on Kalka Shimla Road in Kandaghat Town, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan and the said accommodation was given to defendant on rent for residence purpose in the month of April, 1984 by the plaintiff @ Rs.300/- per mensem and besides this, the defendant was also required to pay Rs.15/- per mensem as water charges to the plaintiff. As per the plaintiff, he determined the tenancy of the defendant from 31.07.1996 by issuance of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, as per the plaintiff, the possession of the defendant since 01.08.1996 was unlawful and unauthorized. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that had the defendant vacated the house on or before 31.07.1996, then the plaintiff could have gained more benefits from the said premises. The demised premises in the year 1996 could have had been rented out by the plaintiff @ Rs.800/- per mensem which was the rent prevalent in the vicinity. On these basis, the plaintiff claimed mesne profit w.e.f. 01.07.1998 upto 30.06.2001 @ Rs.700/- per annum alongwith interest. 3. The demised premises in the year 1996 could have had been rented out by the plaintiff @ Rs.800/- per mensem which was the rent prevalent in the vicinity. On these basis, the plaintiff claimed mesne profit w.e.f. 01.07.1998 upto 30.06.2001 @ Rs.700/- per annum alongwith interest. 3. The suit so filed by the plaintiff was contested by the defendant, inter aia, on the ground that the demised premises were not rented out to the defendant by the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.300/- P.M. but were in fact rented out at the rate of Rs.150/- P.M., as has been held by the Court of learned Additional District Judge in its judgment and decree dated 08.12.2003 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2-S/13 of 2003 in case titled Jugal Kishore Vs. Braham Dev Sood. It was further the case put up by the defendant that the alleged determination of the tenancy by way of alleged notice w.e.f. 31.07.1996 was totally wrong and illegal and the same stood set aside by learned Additional District Judge, Solan, in Civil Appeal No. 2-S/13 of 2003. It is further denied that premises in issue could have been rented out for an amount of Rs.800/- per mensem in the year 1996 and as per the defendant, there was no such rent prevalent in the vicinity for such like accommodation as alleged. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant inter alia on the said grounds. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.28,696/- as prayed? … OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the payment of interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum as alleged? … OPP 3. Relief. 5. On the basis of the evidence which was led by the respective parties before learned trial Court, the following findings were returned to the issues so framed by it:- Issue No. 1 Yes Issue No. 2 Yes Relief The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed as per operative portion of this judgment. 6. … OPP 3. Relief. 5. On the basis of the evidence which was led by the respective parties before learned trial Court, the following findings were returned to the issues so framed by it:- Issue No. 1 Yes Issue No. 2 Yes Relief The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed as per operative portion of this judgment. 6. Accordingly, the suit so filed by the plaintiff was decreed by learned trial Court for recovery of Rs.7344/- on account of rent and mesne profit from 01.07.1998 to 30.06.2001 and future interest @ 15% per annum till the realization of the amount alongwith cost of the suit throughout with special cost of Rs.3,000/-. It was held by learned trial Court that it stood proved on record that the plaintiff had filed suit for possession of demised premises in the year 1996 and due notice was issued to the defendant but legal position changed during the pendency of the trial. It was further held by learned trial Court that learned Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 2-S/13 of 2003 had set aside the prayer of the plaintiff for the possession of the shop and determined the rent at Rs.150/- P.M. Learned trial Court further held that it was also admitted fact that the appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court was pending in the High Court. Learned trial Court further held that the plaintiff had already shown his intention to terminate the tenancy and he had no intention to keep the defendant as a tenant on the demised premises and as Urban Rent Control Act was not applicable to Kandaghat area at the relevant time then the occupation of the defendant cannot be treated to be that of a tenant but he was merely a trespasser who was using the property of the plaintiff without any authority. On these basis, it was held by learned trial Court that till the decision of High Court, the tenancy of the defendant cannot be terminated and possession cannot be given to the plaintiff but the plea of the defendant that he was not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff as mesne profit, was not acceptable as the defendant could not use the property of the plaintiff without paying any rent. On these basis, it was held by learned trial Court that the plaintiff was entitled for the recovery of Rs.5,400/- as a principal amount on account of monthly rent @ Rs.150/-. Learned trial Court further held that as the defendant had not paid any rent from 1996 onwards, therefore, the plaintiff was also entitled for the interest @ Rs.12% per annum. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment so passed by learned trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal on the ground that learned trial Court had erred in not granting mesne profit to the plaintiff as Rs.700/- P.M. as claimed by him, whereas cross-objections were preferred against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court by the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled for the decree which was passed in his favour by learned trial Court qua interest. 8. Vide its judgment and decree dated 16.08.2007, learned Appellate Court while affirming the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant as well as cross-objections filed by the defendant. While arriving at the said conclusion it was held by learned Appellate Court that judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge, Solan, in Civil Appeal No. 2-S/13 of 2003, showed that the rent of the premises in dispute was held Rs.150/- P.M. and on these basis, it was held by learned Appellate Court (in the present case) that there was no irregularity or illegality in the findings returned by learned trial Court, vide which, the plaintiff was awarded rent of Rs.150/- P.M. It was further held by learned Appellate Court that contention of the defendant that learned trial Court had erred in granting interest more than what was claimed by the plaintiff had no legal force and as the Court has inherent powers to grant any relief to the party which it deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Appellate Court held that the rent of the premises was very nominal i.e. Rs.150/- P.M. as held by learned trial Court but despite this defendant had neither paid any rent to the plaintiff nor deposited in the Court, which had forced the plaintiff to file the suit. Learned Appellate Court held that the rent of the premises was very nominal i.e. Rs.150/- P.M. as held by learned trial Court but despite this defendant had neither paid any rent to the plaintiff nor deposited in the Court, which had forced the plaintiff to file the suit. It further held that keeping in view the conduct of the defendant, learned trial Court had not committed any error in awarding special cost of Rs.3000/- to the plaintiff and interest @ 15% per annum. On these basis, learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as well as cross-objections. 9. The judgment and decree so passed by learned Appellate Court is under challenge in this appeal, which has been filed by the plaintiff. No appeal against the dismissal of cross-objections has been filed by the defendant. 10. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the learned Court below while fixing the mesne profits has rightly relied upon judgment dated 10.12.2003 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Solan, modifying judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 85/1 of 1996 wherein rent has been fixed by virtue of application of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 and which judgment is under challenge by way of Regular Second Appeal pending before this Hon'ble Court.” 11. It is a matter of record that Regular Second Appeal which was filed against the judgment referred to in the substantial question of law stands disposed of by this Court on 26.02.2013 by passing the following order: “When both appeals were taken up for hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the suit premises have since been handed over to the landlord Sh. Braham Dev. In these circumstances, I hold that both appeals have become infructuous and disposed of as such. No finding is given on the merits of the points of law and facts of the case. 2. Submission is made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Braham Dev that some amount of Rs. 6,000/-as arrear remains due and recoverable from the respondents. In the changed circumstances, I do not deem it necessary to go into this fact.” 12. 2. Submission is made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Braham Dev that some amount of Rs. 6,000/-as arrear remains due and recoverable from the respondents. In the changed circumstances, I do not deem it necessary to go into this fact.” 12. In this view of the matter, now the issue which has to be determined by this Court is as to whether the findings returned by learned trial Court to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to mesne profit per mensem @ Rs.150/- is correct finding or whether the plaintiff was entitled for an amount of Rs.700/- P.M. for mesne profit. 13. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to take note of the fact that it is settled law that determination of mesne profits is to be done on the basis of cogent and credible evidence like recent registered lease deeds of locality to show the amount of rent which is payable and inadmissible evidence is not to be taken into account for this purpose. The basic principle which is to be kept in mind is that tenant is under a bounden duty to pay the rent which is akin to the market rent. 14. A perusal of the records of the case demonstrates that to substantiate his claim that he was entitled for mesne profits @ Rs.700/- P.M. after the determination of the tenancy of the defendant, the plaintiff examined two witnesses including himself. PW-1 Umesh Kumar, owner of Uco Bank building in Kandaghat, stated that he had rented out house for residential purposes and in the year 1996 rent for premises having two rooms and two kitchens was Rs.1000/- P.M. He further stated that now-a-days the said premises could be rented out for Rs.1,500/- P.M. In his cross-examination, he stated that he could not state as to what should be the rent for the premises which were with the respondent. 15. Plaintiff entered the witness box as PW-2 and he reiterated his version that he was entitled for mesne profit @ Rs.700/- P.M. In his cross-examination, he denied that the premises were rented out to the defendant for an amount of Rs.150/- P.M. Besides this, the plaintiff produced on record a copy of judgment passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kandaghat, in Civil Suit No. 46-K/1 of 2003 titled Rajeev Sharma & Ors. Vs. Brij Mohan. 16. Vs. Brij Mohan. 16. A perusal of the evidence on record demonstrates that there was no cogent and convincing evidence led by plaintiff either by way of latest lease deed or by way of any other registered document from which it could be inferred that the rental rates of the premises akin to that of plaintiff which were with the defendant was around Rs.700/- P.M. The onus to prove as to what were the occupation charges to which he was entitled to was upon the plaintiff. In my considered view, the plaintiff on the basis of evidence which was led by him miserably failed to discharge the said onus. There was no cogent and reliable evidence placed on record from which it could be inferred that the premises of the plaintiff in possession of the defendant in fact demanded occupation charges @ Rs.700/- P.M. or more. 17. Therefore, in these circumstances, in my considered view, no error was committed by learned trial Court in granting mesne profits in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the findings returned by learned Additional District Judge in Civil Appeal No. 1-S/13 of 2003 titled Jugal Kishore Vs. Braham Dev Sood, dated 10.12.2003, which judgment passed by learned Appellate Court otherwise has now attained finality. Reliance placed upon by learned trial Court on the judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge dated 10.12.2003 in Civil Appeal could have been faulted with, if there was any other material available with learned trial Court on the basis of which learned trial Court could have had inferred that the premises in dispute in fact commanded better occupation charges. The factum of pendency of Regular Second Appeal in this Court against the judgment passed by learned Appellate Court lost relevance with the passage of time as during the pendency of this litigation, it is an admitted position that the demised premises stand vacated by the defendant. Learned Appellate Court also rightly upheld the findings returned by learned trial Court by correctly appreciating the evidence on record as well as the judgment passed by learned trial Court. Further it cannot be said that the findings returned by both learned Courts below are either perverse or not borne out from the records of the case. 18. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. Further it cannot be said that the findings returned by both learned Courts below are either perverse or not borne out from the records of the case. 18. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Miscellaneous application (s) pending, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, also stands disposed of.