JUDGMENT : Prasanta Kumar Deka, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. R. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The present appellants are the defendants in Title Suit No. 9/2003 preferred by the plaintiffs respondents, a registered partnership firm wherein an amount of Rs. 33,62,100/- sought to be recovered from the defendants appellants by way of damages. The plaintiffs respondents own two godowns which were let out to defendants appellants being the Food Corporation of India (FCI), a statutory body and its officials in the year, 1978 upon execution of lease deeds at monthly rent of Rs. 7,336/-. The said lease deeds expired on 1.2.1987 and 26.4.1987 for the two godowns. Inspite of expiry of the terms of the lease deeds the defendants appellants continued to occupy upon the assurance given to the plaintiffs respondent for enhancement of the monthly rent which was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of fresh lease deeds. 2. The plaintiffs respondents in the pleading states that though there were internal correspondence amongst the officials of the FCI, but the executing officials viz. defendant Nos. 3 and 4 failed to comply with various correspondence both internal and the one made by the plaintiffs respondents and accordingly delayed the matter without there being any fault on their part. The plaintiff respondents though proposed various proposals to come to a negotiated settlement fixing the enhanced rent but owing to the lack of coordination amongst officials of FCI they were forced to suffer loss. Notices from Advocate were also issued to vacate the tenanted premises on failure, to file suit for ejectment of the defendants appellants but they remained unmoved. Belatedly the FCI through its officials accepted their demand and settled the enhanced rate of rent. For negligence of the defendants appellants the plaintiffs respondents were put to the loss of Rs. 33,62,100/- and so prayed for the decree for compensation alongwith interest accrued thereon. 3. The defendants appellants filed written statement thereby denying the claim of the plaintiffs respondents by pleading specifically that the suit is not maintainable in law as well as in facts. For negligence of the defendants appellants the plaintiffs respondents were put to the loss of Rs. 33,62,100/- and so prayed for the decree for compensation alongwith interest accrued thereon. 3. The defendants appellants filed written statement thereby denying the claim of the plaintiffs respondents by pleading specifically that the suit is not maintainable in law as well as in facts. It was also pleaded in the written statement that rent of the godowns up to March, 1993 was paid to the plaintiffs respondents which were accepted without making any demand for payment of interest thereon. Admitting that the plaintiffs respondents came down from the original demand of exorbitant enhanced rent whereafter fixation of rent was possible and subsequent lease deed was executed between the parties to the suit. It is pertinent to mention here that out of two godowns one was left out of the subsequent tenancy/lease agreement. Further it was pleaded that there were no intentional negligence on the part of the defendants to clear the dues and delay was caused reasonably for the official process and exorbitant demand of rent for which the plaintiffs respondents are not entitled to claim any interest from the defendants. 4. On the basis of the pleadings following issues were framed by the learned trial court: 1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit 2. Whether there has been gross negligence on the part of the defendant in fixing the rent of the godown in the instant case and whether the facts and circumstances obtainable in this case, the plaintiff is entitled to interest/damages on delayed fixation and payment of rent and if so, at what rate? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover further Rs. 5,49,500/- being excess income tax paid because of payment of rent by the defendant for a number of years at a time after finalisation of the same? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover further sum of Rs. 65,000/- on account of expenses for the communication, travelling, legal expenses etc? 5. To what other relief, the parties are entitled to? 5. The plaintiffs adduced evidence of two witnesses and on the other hand, defendants appellants failed to adduce evidence in support of their defence. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover further sum of Rs. 65,000/- on account of expenses for the communication, travelling, legal expenses etc? 5. To what other relief, the parties are entitled to? 5. The plaintiffs adduced evidence of two witnesses and on the other hand, defendants appellants failed to adduce evidence in support of their defence. The learned trial Court decided issue No. 2 thereby holding that there were gross negligence on the part of the defendants appellants in fixing the fair rent of the godowns and plaintiffs respondents are entitled to claim interest/damages due to delayed fixation and payment of rent. The issue No. 3 was decided against the plaintiffs respondents as the plaintiffs respondents failed to prove that they had paid excess income tax owing to deposit of the rent by the defendants appellants at a time after finalisation of the same in the bank account of plaintiffs respondents. The issue No. 4 was decided in the affirmative on the ground that the plaintiffs respondents engaged several Advocates and had to travel for pursuing the matter. Accordingly, learned trial Court decreed the suit for realisation of Rs. 27,47,600/- due to the loss and damages and sum of Rs. 65,000/- on account of expenses for communication, travelling and legal expenses. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 20.12.2012, the defendants appellants preferred this appeal. 6. Mr. Roy submits that the plaintiffs respondents have no legal, contractual or any other right to claim damages or interest. It is further stated that the lease agreement/agreements after expiry in the year 1987, there were no other lease agreements enhancing and fixing the monthly rent and non payment thereof damages cannot be claimed by the plaintiffs respondents. It is also submitted that vide Exts. 19 and 20 the plaintiffs respondents offered the rate of rent which was accepted by the authority but without any stipulation for payment of interest towards arrear rent and as such plaintiffs respondents cannot claim damages for accumulated payment and delayed disbursal. The plaintiffs respondents failed to prove the loss caused to it and there is no definite proof that the defendants appellants unnecessarily caused delay in paying the arrear rent. The plaintiffs respondents failed to prove the loss caused to it and there is no definite proof that the defendants appellants unnecessarily caused delay in paying the arrear rent. The plaintiffs respondents ought to have taken shelter of the provisions stipulated for fixation of fair rent under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 which is an efficacious remedy and without taking shelter of the said provisions, the plaintiffs respondents are not entitled to the reliefs against damages so prayed for in the suit. Accordingly he sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. Ms. Hazarika on her part submits that the plaintiffs respondents laid ample proof against their claim and successfully bring to the notice of the Court the act of negligence on the part of the defendants appellants which are intentional in nature and said delay in making the payment of arrear rent had caused loss in terms of money to them. The court below considered the documentary evidence which the plaintiffs respondents exhibited and the amount claimed in the form of interest on the arrear rent has been duly calculated and annexed to the demand notice which is exhibited as Ext. 25 issued by the Advocate on behalf of the plaintiffs respondents. Thus Mrs. Hazarika sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel, the point for determination can be put down as follows: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable under the law and if so, whether the plaintiffs respondents have been able to prove the loss sustained due to non payment of the arrear enhanced rent immediately after the expiry of the lease as per the stipulation of lease deeds. 9. The relation of the plaintiffs respondents and the defendants appellants are admittedly landlord and tenant. From Ext. 4, a letter dated 20.2.1993 written by one of the partners of plaintiff firm to the defendant appellant No. 3 wherefrom it is seen that the plaintiffs respondents had submitted a fresh proposal for further enhancement of rent w.e.f. 1.2.1992 and 26.4.1992. In the said letter it was mentioned that as the matter is pending for a long period of time, the plaintiffs respondents were facing financial loss. Vide Ext. In the said letter it was mentioned that as the matter is pending for a long period of time, the plaintiffs respondents were facing financial loss. Vide Ext. 5, which is an Advocate notice dated 19.2.1996 the plaintiffs respondents asked the defendants appellants to vacate the godowns within one month from the date of issue of the said notice failing which it was intimated that it would institute proper proceeding for redressal of the grievances. Ext. 6 is a letter dated 23.10.1998 issued by the plaintiffs respondents thereby explaining as to why the notice to vacate both the godowns was issued and in the said notice it was further requested to do the needful. The said letter dated 23.10.1998 was in reply to the letter issued by the defendants appellants dated 21.10.1998. After receipt of the said letter of the plaintiffs respondents dated 23.10.1998, vide Ext. 7 the defendant appellant No. 4 informed that the said contents of the letter was not in conformity with the queries made by the letter dated 21.10.1998 for which the plaintiffs respondents were again requested by the defendant appellant No. 4 to clarify vide Ext. 8. The plaintiffs respondents proposed to come to settlement. Vide Ext. 10, Advocate notice dated 26.4.1999, plaintiffs respondents demanded the defendants appellants to clear the arrear rent within 30 days and in the event of failure it was informed that it would move the proper forum for recovery of house rent, compensation etc. Again vide Advocate notice dated 8.10.1999 the plaintiffs respondents demanded to vacate the godown within 31.10.1999 and to pay arrear rent as per the bills raised by the plaintiffs respondents and in the event of failure, suit for ejectment would be filed alongwith recovery of arrear rent and interest thereon. Vide letter dated 29.10.1999 the defendant appellant No. 4 proposed the recommended enhanced rent by the Zonal Office, w.e.f. 1.2.1987 and sought for consent in writing from the plaintiffs respondents. With reference to the said letter dated 29.10.1999, the plaintiffs respondents vide letter dated 1.11.1999, Ext. 15 asked for some clarification by proposing enhancement of rent @ 20% after expiry of every two completed years. However, no demand for interest on the said arrear rent was proposed. Again vide Ext. 17, an Advocate notice dated 4.12.1999 plaintiffs respondents sought for vacating the rented premises thereby informing that on their failure it would file ejectment suit. 15 asked for some clarification by proposing enhancement of rent @ 20% after expiry of every two completed years. However, no demand for interest on the said arrear rent was proposed. Again vide Ext. 17, an Advocate notice dated 4.12.1999 plaintiffs respondents sought for vacating the rented premises thereby informing that on their failure it would file ejectment suit. Finally vide Ext. 19 and Ext. 20 the offer of the rent by the plaintiffs respondents was accepted wherein no such demand for interest was mentioned nor accepted by the defendants appellants. 10. The aforesaid exhibits which are the communication between the parties to the suit clearly shows that there was no concluded contract thereby fixing the enhanced rent between the parties to the suit. Proposals and counter proposals were exchanged between the parties to the suit and finally they arrived into the accepted amount of rent on 20.12.1999 vide Ext. 19. 11. From the aforesaid discussion it is clear that immediately after expiry of tenancy agreement in the year 1987 no fixed enhanced rent was arrived at by the parties. Both the parties participated in order to arrive at the acceptable enhanced rent and in such a situation, the defendants appellants were not in a position to pay the enhanced rent though they were paying the pre-enhanced rent. In such a situation if there was a dispute between the parties and as there was a clause in the earlier tenancy agreement for enhancement of rent after a block of five years, which the defendants appellants did not perform, the plaintiffs respondents ought to have enforced the said stipulation in the said tenancy agreement through court. In addition to that there are specific provision under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 for fixation of fair rent through the court. But the parties to the suit preferred to settle on their own. Under such circumstances, it cannot be held that defendants appellants were negligent in their duty following which damages were caused to the plaintiffs respondents. Accordingly, interest on the arrear rent cannot be claimed as damages until and unless the parties agreed to such condition at the time of entering into the tenancy. 12. The relation between the parties to the suit as aforesaid governed by the relationship of Landlord and Tenant. Expiry of tenancy agreement cannot put the defendants appellants as wrongful occupier of the tenanted premises. 12. The relation between the parties to the suit as aforesaid governed by the relationship of Landlord and Tenant. Expiry of tenancy agreement cannot put the defendants appellants as wrongful occupier of the tenanted premises. Once the tenancy agreement expires the defendants appellants are "statutory tenant" and the possession thereof the tenanted premises does not become wrongful. The plaintiffs respondents did not file any eviction suit nor any decree for ejectment of the defendants appellants was in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents on the date of filing the suit or prior to it. Under such circumstances the possession of defendants appellants of the godowns cannot be termed to be wrongful. If the defendants appellants failed to vacate the godowns after a decree of eviction then the possession would certainly be wrongful and unauthorised. Only under such circumstances the plaintiffs respondents are entitled for damages. In Smt. Chander Kali Bail Vs. Jagadish Singh Thakur reported in AIR 1977 SC 2262 , it was held as follows:- "9.........................The conclusion is inevitable, therefore, that if a suit is filed on the ground of non-payment of rent after termination of the contractual tenancy, the tenant still continues to be a tenant liable to pay rent not only for the past period but in future also. In absence of a decree of eviction the person in occupation of the accommodation continues to be a tenant and is not liable to pay any damages as his occupation is not unauthorised or wrongful even after the termination of the contractual tenancy.............." 13. In my opinion keeping in view the aforesaid ratio the present suit is not maintainable. The claim of the plaintiffs respondents is for the damages owing to non payment of enhanced rent immediately on its due. But no such enhanced rent was quantified in the agreement Moreover damages in any form against a tenant can be claimed only after ejectment decree is passed against the tenant and continued occupying the tenanted premises. Then in such a situation applying the principles of the theory of "relation back" the plaintiffs respondents can sought for damages from the date of expiry of the tenancy agreement though the date of eviction decree is much after the expiry of tenancy agreement. 14. Then in such a situation applying the principles of the theory of "relation back" the plaintiffs respondents can sought for damages from the date of expiry of the tenancy agreement though the date of eviction decree is much after the expiry of tenancy agreement. 14. The suit is not maintainable on another count also inasmuch as the arrear rent after its enhancement was not stipulated in the agreement and quantified rather the same was kept open to be fixed by the parties and no duty was cast upon the defendants appellants to fix it on its own and pay the arrear on the said unilateral fixation of enhanced rent 15. From the documents available, the learned trial court is wrong in accepting the interest of Rs. 27,47,600/- to be the loss caused to the plaintiffs respondents. The calculation of the said interest is a mere annexure to the Advocate notice dated 24.8.2003. The plaintiffs respondents failed to prove the loss so caused to them by any authenticated evidence. The Advocate who issued the notice alongwith the annexure was not examined and the same is devoid of any certificate from the Advocate showing the source and basis of such calculation. 16. Accordingly, the findings of the learned courts below are set aside and the suit is dismissed. No costs. Prepare a decree accordingly. Send back the LCR.