JUDGMENT : 1. There were two SCC revisions filed by U.P. Export Corporation Limited and Vinay Kumar Jain, i.e., the tenants and the landlord respectively under Section – 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2005, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Lucknow whereby the suit filed by the landlord for ejectment was decreed and the tenant was directed to pay Rs.16000/-per month as damages for use and occupation of the shop in question till the date of vacation of the premises. 2. The tenant had preferred revision no.198/2005 challenging the decree for ejectment along with the quantification of damages for use and occupation of the premises. The landlord had filed civil revision no.201/2005 only against that part of the judgment of the trial court whereby it determined the mesne profits of the premises at the rate of Rs.5/-per square feet instead of Rs.50/- per square feet, as had been prayed for by the landlord. 3. This Court after noticing the facts before the learned trial court rejected the revision of the tenant but at the same time observed in para 17 & 18 of its judgment as follows :- “17. With regard to enhancement of rent, the Court below has taken into account various exemplars filed by the revisionist to indicate the rate of rent of the adjoining buildings. In respect of the buildings leased out to Bank of Baroda as well as ICICI Bank, the landlord had permitted to raise construction and make alterations in accordance with the requirements of the Bank. In so far as the building in question was concerned, there was no such relaxation by the landlord to the tenant nor was there any fixture etc in accordance with the requirements of the revisionist. The disputed premises was only in the shape of a Hall measuring 3300 square feet of which the Court had fixed Rs.5/-per square feet taking into account the exemplars filed by the revisionist. The conclusion arrived at by the Court below in respect of the enhancement of rent is well considered and perfectly justified and does not deserve to be interfered with. 18. Looking to the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, the rate of Rs.5/-per square feet in respect of the premises in question appears to have been rightly fixed.” 4. The conclusion arrived at by the Court below in respect of the enhancement of rent is well considered and perfectly justified and does not deserve to be interfered with. 18. Looking to the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, the rate of Rs.5/-per square feet in respect of the premises in question appears to have been rightly fixed.” 4. This Court by its order dated 25.5.2007 rejected both the revisions and directed the tenant who continued to be in possession over the shop in question and to pay the landlord a sum of Rs.16,000/-per month for use and occupation, by the 10th of each month and the tenant was also directed to vacate the premises in question by 31.12.2007. 5. The landlord being aggrieved against the determination of the mesne profits, i.e., rent at the rate of Rs.5/-per square feet and direction for payment of only Rs.16,000/-per month as damages for continued use and occupation of the shop in question, approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition which was converted into Civil Appeal No.5576 of 2008 [Vinay Kumar Jain and Others vs. U.P. Export Corporation Limited through its Managing Director]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the Civil Appeal by its order dated 08.9.2008 by making the following observations :- “In this matter, the dispute is regarding mesne profits. The High Court had awarded mesne profits at the rate of Rs.5/-per square feet. During the pendency of the SLP, we directed valuation report to be filed before us. The appellant has done so. According to the valuation report, the rate comes to Rs.29.65 per square feet. We are of the view that Rs.5/-per square feet was a very low amount. However, as far as the correct rate to be applied, we set-aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. It would be open to both the sides to file respective valuation reports and argue on that basis before the High Court. Civil Appeal is disposed of with no order as to cost.” 6. It would be open to both the sides to file respective valuation reports and argue on that basis before the High Court. Civil Appeal is disposed of with no order as to cost.” 6. In view of the matter being remanded before this Court by the Hon’ble Supreme Court only for determining the question of mesne profits, an application has been filed by Vinay Kumar Jain and Others for placing two documents, i.e., the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the original valuation report dated 14.02.2008 under the signatures of one Shri Khajan Chandra in respect of the fair rental value of the property in question along with the documents lists which was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal. 7. The valuation report of Shri Khajan Chandra dated 14.02.2008 has been perused by me. Shri Khajan Chandra has shown his qualification as MIE (India) FIV Registered Valuer [Govt. of India], Chartered Engineer, Retired Executive Engineer UPPWD. Shri Khajan Chandra, in his introduction has shown himself to be a recognized valuer by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow since 1995. His valuation report is based on the survey of Mahatma Gandhi Marg and site inspection done by him on 12.02.2008 and on the facts and figures supplied by the representatives of the landlords. 8. Shri Khajan Chandra has given a description of the property in question and as to how Mr. Vinay Kumar Jain and Others came to be in possession thereof. It has been mentioned that a plot of land was purchased in year 1935 on which a double storied building was constructed some time in year 1940. It came into the hands of the landlord on the basis of a family settlement. The property was bounded in north by the shop of “Libas Bombay Dying”, on the South By the shop of PHOTO Point, on the East by the Mahatma Gandhi Marg and on the West by the MAQBARA Road. The details of construction have been mentioned but it has been pointed out that the Fair Rental value is to be calculated for the shop on the ground floor only which is in the shape of a Hall with columns and in front of the shop there is a 15 feet wide verandah. The details of construction have been mentioned but it has been pointed out that the Fair Rental value is to be calculated for the shop on the ground floor only which is in the shape of a Hall with columns and in front of the shop there is a 15 feet wide verandah. The walls are 14” to 18” thick in lime/ cement mortar, duly plastered with cement and the flooring is of marble stone. The roof was constructed of reinforced brick and it has been observed that the building is in good sturdy condition. The valuer Shri Khajan Chandra has thereafter considered the general principles of determination of the rent of a property. It has been observed that while fixing fair rent of any property, a fixed percentage factor is considered over total value of such property. Total value referred to would consist of the market value of site, and value of amenities etc. A return of 6% to 9% for residential property and 9% to 12% for commercial property can be considered as reasonable. He has observed that he considers a rent of 10% as reasonable in the case of the particular shop rented out to U.P. Export Corporation. 9. Thereafter, a detailed consideration of valuation on the basis of annual rental value of the property has been made with regard to the covered area of the shop and the circle rates fixed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow for the purpose of stamp duty with effect from 01.4.2002. Rates of land were fixed for Hazratganj Ward for commercial land is Rs.15,100/-per square meter and such rates had to be enhanced by 10% on property being situated on more than 9 meter wide road. The rate worked out to Rs.16,610/- per square meter for commercial land. The District Magistrate, Lucknow in his list had fixed Rs.100/-per square meter per month as rent for commercial property. Mr. Khajan Chandra took into account the covered area of the shop of 306.57 square meters and the value of the land at the rate of Rs.16,610/-per square meter and the value of the building at the rate of Rs.100/-per square meter fixed by the District Magistrate and came to assess the total value of the property at Rs.1,17,43,164/- only. 10. Khajan Chandra took into account the covered area of the shop of 306.57 square meters and the value of the land at the rate of Rs.16,610/-per square meter and the value of the building at the rate of Rs.100/-per square meter fixed by the District Magistrate and came to assess the total value of the property at Rs.1,17,43,164/- only. 10. For determination of rent of such property Shri Khajan Chandra has observed that fair rental value would be 10% of the value of the property and worked out the rent on a per month basis @ Rs.97,860/-which worked out per square feet to Rs.29.65 paise. Shri Khajan Chandra has also taken into consideration the rent of adjoining properties, i.e., shop no.31/37, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow let out to U.P. Co-operative Bank Limited for an area of 1280 square feet as fixed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.62/2004 which worked out to approximately Rs.29 per square feet at the circle rate applicable on 01.4.2002. 11. In the case of another adjoining shop no.31/29 Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow let out by Shri Gyan Chand Jain to U.P. Export Corporation Limited for an area of 1875 square feet, rent was fixed by the District Judge in Rent Appeal no. 8 of 2007 which worked out to Rs.28.78 per square feet or Rs.29 per square feet approximately. 12. Shri Khajan Chandra has observed that since for the adjoining shops, rent determined by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 62 of 2004 and by the District Judge, Lucknow in Rent Appeal No.8 of 2007 worked out to around Rs.29/-per square feet, the rent as determined by him at the rate of Rs.29.65 per square feet, seemed to be reasonable to him. 13. He has, however, observed that the building was situated at Mahatma Gandhi Marg in Main Hazratganj Ward and the open market rate of rent was much higher, say around Rs.60/-to 80/-per square feet in year 2002, which on the date of submission of his valuation report in year 2008 was over Rs.100/- per square feet. 14. 13. He has, however, observed that the building was situated at Mahatma Gandhi Marg in Main Hazratganj Ward and the open market rate of rent was much higher, say around Rs.60/-to 80/-per square feet in year 2002, which on the date of submission of his valuation report in year 2008 was over Rs.100/- per square feet. 14. Shri Khajan Chandra, however, has not relied upon the market rate and he has only relied upon fair rent as worked out by him on the basis of Circle Rate and the rental value as determined by the District Magistrate, Lucknow with effect from 01.4.2002, and reiterated that such rent should be Rs.29.65 per square feet. 15. Shri Divyanshu Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the Revisionist-landlords through virtual mode has relied upon several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of various High Courts to say that fair rental value should not be determined on the basis of circle rate but should be determined on the basis of market rate of rent as applicable in the area in question. He has argued that Mahatma Gandhi Marg where the shop is situated in Hazratganj, is the main shopping area of the City of Lucknow and the shop is a corner shop. As per current situation, it is bounded on the East by the showroom of ‘Sony World’ and on the West by the Showroom of ‘Roopali’. The shop in question no doubt is situated on the same road as the shops whose exemplars have been considered by Shri Khajan Chand, i.e., Shop No.31/37 let out to U.P. Co-operative Bank Limited and Shop No.31/29 let out to U.P. Export Corporation Limited but it has been submitted by Shri Divyanshu that right across the road the rent that has been determined in the case of Bank of Baroda and ICICI Bank is much much higher and these exemplars were produced before the learned Trial court by the landlords to show that they were entitled to at least Rs.50/-per square feet. The exemplars have been rejected by the learned Trial court and by the High Court wrongly by making observations that the landlords in such cases have let out the buildings to Banks and had made alterations that were necessary for the running of the Banks and had also provided various of the fixtures and amenities to facilitate the Banks’ functioning, therefore, such buildings have been rented out on a higher rent and not comparable to the disputed premises. 16. Shri Divyanshu Sahay has placed reliance upon Atma Ram Properties (P) vs. Federal Motors (P) Limited [ (2005) 1 SCC 705 ] and para 13 of the said judgment where the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows :- “13. In Shyam Charan v. Sheoji Bhai [ (1997) 4 SCC 393 ] this Court has upheld the principle that the tenant continuing in occupation of the tenancy premises after the termination of tenancy is an unauthorized and wrongful occupant and a decree for damages or mesne profits can be passed for the period of such occupation , till the date he delivers the vacant possession to the landlord. With advantage and approval, we may refer to a decision of the Nagpur High Court. In Bhagwandas Lakhamsi v. Kokabai [AIR 1953 Nag 186] the learned Chief Nagpur High Court held that the Rent Control Order, governing the relationship of the landlord and tenant, has no relevance for determining the question of what should be the measure of damages which a successful landlord should get from the tenant for being kept out of the possession and enjoyment of the property. After determination of tenancy, the position of the tenant is akin to that of a trespasser and he cannot claim that the measure of damages awardable to the landlord should be kept tagged to the rate of rent payable under the provisions of the Rent Control Order. If the real value of the property is higher that the rent earned then the amount of compensation for continued use and occupation of the property by the tenant can be assessed at the higher value. We find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the Nagpur High Court.” 17. Mr. Sahai has also referred to Marshall Sons & Co. We find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the Nagpur High Court.” 17. Mr. Sahai has also referred to Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Limited vs. Sahi Oretrans (P) Limited [(1999) 2 SCC page 25] and para 4 of the said judgment which makes certain observations with regard to how the landlord is made to suffer because proceedings are dragged for long time at the stage of trial and thereafter on technical ground in execution and the Court has observed that for protecting the interest of the judgment-creditor, it is necessary to pass appropriate orders so that reasonable mesne profits which may be equivalent to the market rent is paid by a person who is holding over the property. 18. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Matuk Dhari Singh vs. Ali Naqi reported in 1887 SCC Online Allahabad page 11 and to the observation made by Justice Mahmood that mesne profits awarded must be assessed as damages against the present appellant with reference to his character of having been in possession under an invalid sale-deed and thus, being the trespasser upon the land. The Court observed thus :- “It seems to me that the proper measures of the damages is not the rent which was payable by the occupancy-tenant to the zamindar, a rent subject to its own peculiar statutory, limitations but the proper market value of the land for the purposes of leasing. That value has been found ----------------and this sum, therefore, represents the loss occasioned by the wrongful act of the present appellant in getting into possession of the land under an invalid sale-deed from the occupancy tenants ------------.” 19. Learned counsel for the revisionist-landlord has also placed reliance upon Chiranji Lal vs. Kunwar Prasad and Another [AIR 1963 All.249, para 3] where while assessing mesne profits the court observed that they should be assessed according to reasonable market value of the premises. If the rent represents a fair value, mesne profits may be assessed at the amount of the rent, but if the real value is higher than the rent, mesne profits must be assessed at a higher value. 20. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anderson Wright & Co. If the rent represents a fair value, mesne profits may be assessed at the amount of the rent, but if the real value is higher than the rent, mesne profits must be assessed at a higher value. 20. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anderson Wright & Co. vs. Amar Nath Roy [ 2005 (6) SCC 489 , para 6] where the Supreme Court had observed while noting down the contention of the appellants that they are not liable to pay anything more than the standard rent of the premises that such a contention was misconceived in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties Private Limited (supra). The Court observed that both the parties had placed on record material giving Court a fair idea of rent generally prevalent in the locality where the suit property was situated. Taking an overall view of the material made available by the parties, the Court fixed mesne profits/ compensation for use and occupation on the basis of rent of adjoining properties till final determination of the same was made by a competent forum. 21. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon another judgment of a coordinate bench of this Court rendered in Mohd Yamin Khan & Others vs. Sheikh Maqbool Husain and Others [1965 SCC online Allahabad 335] where this Court had observed that the assessment of compensation for use and occupation should not be on the basis of controlled rent but on the basis of fair rent. The question that as to what was fair rent has to be decided on the circumstances of each case. If the controlled rent does not represent the fair rental value of the accommodation, mesne profits should be assessed at a higher value. For such observations this Court has placed reliance upon Clifton Securities Limited vs. Huntley [1948 (2) All E.R.283] and Bhagwan Das vs. Mst. Kokabai [AIR 1943 Nagpur 186]. 22. If the controlled rent does not represent the fair rental value of the accommodation, mesne profits should be assessed at a higher value. For such observations this Court has placed reliance upon Clifton Securities Limited vs. Huntley [1948 (2) All E.R.283] and Bhagwan Das vs. Mst. Kokabai [AIR 1943 Nagpur 186]. 22. Learned counsel for the revisionist-landlord has also placed reliance upon judgment rendered by the High Court of Calcutta in National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Turner Morrison Ltd [2016 SCC online Calcutta 4956] where in para 9, 12, 19 and 20 the principles for determining mesne profits of Commercial property have been enumerated and it has been observed that “a person who is deprived of a right to possess a property is not only entitled to receive possession of the property but also damages for wrongful possession from the person who had occupied the property wrongfully and illegally. Mesne profit is meant to be a compensation, which is penal in nature. The object of awarding a decree for mesne profit is to compensate the person who has been kept out of possession and deprived of enjoyment of the property even though he was entitled to possession thereof. Since the mesne profit is in the nature of damages, no invariable rule governing its award and assessment in every case can be laid down and “ the Court may mould it according to the justice of the case.” -------------------There hardly exists any uniform and standard pattern of the assessment of mesne profits. Comparative assessments of the nature, location, accessibility to the main road, facilities, age of the suit premises on the one hand and similar characteristics in surrounding area on the other hand, would be a relevant factor in assessing the mesne profit. Such determination of the amount of mesne profits must receive a liberal and purposive construction and the provision relating to mesne profit is required to be construed in a manner that is just and equitable. While determining mesne profits, the Court, need not be over-strict in expecting such proof of the suggested amount as it would accept for holding certain fact being established.” 23. While determining mesne profits, the Court, need not be over-strict in expecting such proof of the suggested amount as it would accept for holding certain fact being established.” 23. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon a judgment of Delhi High Court in M/S Sushi Enterprises Private Limited vs. CEAT Limited reported in [2018 SCC online Delhi 12551] where it has been observed that if some documentary evidence is available in terms of the lease deed of adjoining properties then mesne profits has to be granted in terms of such evidence. 24. Shri Divyanshu Sahai has also placed reliance upon certain judgments of the Calcutta High Court and the Delhi High Court on the question of interest on mesne profits where the Delhi High Court has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Mahant Narayan Dasjee Varu And Others vs. Board of Trustees, The Tirumalai Tirupathi Devasthanam [AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1231]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed in the said case that as per the definition of mesne profits given in Section 2(12) of the CPC, interest forms an integral part of the mesne profits and once the Court awards the mesne profits, the interest accruing thereon has to be allowed in the computation of the mesne profits itself. Thus, a tenant cannot be permitted to urge that mesne profits, which in fact ought to have been paid years ago, should not bear any interest. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that interest is the integral part of the mesne profits and, therefore, the same has to be allowed in the computation of the mesne profits itself, hence, Shri Divyanshu Sahai has argued that the revisionists are also entitled to interest on the rent as determined by this Court for the tenant to be liable to pay to the landlord for continued occupation from the date of the judgment of the learned trial court till actual possession was delivered to the landlord, on 31.01.2008. 25. Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla appears for the U.P. Export Corporation Limited, the respondent-tenant. He has pointed out that in pursuance of observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court fair market rent has to be determined by this Court. 25. Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla appears for the U.P. Export Corporation Limited, the respondent-tenant. He has pointed out that in pursuance of observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court fair market rent has to be determined by this Court. He has pointed out from the trial court judgment the exemplars considered by the trial court of adjoining properties and he has also pointed out that the lease deed submitted as exemplars by the landlord in respect of the ICICI Bank and Bank of Baroda had been rightly rejected as the circumstances as well as the situation of the said shops in the Mahatma Gandhi Marg were entirely different. He has argued on the basis of a report submitted through application dated 29.01.2014 of Shri K.K. Agarwal, approved Valuer wherein Shri K.K. Agarwal who is a Government approved Valuer under Section 34 AB of Immovable Property under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and the Income Tax Act since 1993, had also inspected the property in question and surveyed the surrounding area. In the said report filed through affidavit of Shri K.K. Agarwal himself on January, 2014 reference has been made to assessment of the property as on 01.4.2008 for market value. 26. A brief description of the property leased out to U.P. Export Corporation by the revisionist-landlord has been mentioned and this Court has carefully perused such report. It finds that even though the property in question is situated in Hazratganj ward, Shri K.K. Agarwal has inexplicably mentioned the Ward as Narhi in the year 1981, and has taken the Circle Rate as applicable on 30.3.1981 for calculation of the value of the land. He has observed that the market rate of land in Narhi Ward at Mahatma Gandhi Marg is Rs.45/-per square feet and the area of the land being 3300 square feet multiplying it by 45 he has come to the rate of the land as Rs.1,48,500/-. By applying Cost Inflation Index as notified by the Central Government the said cost of land has been brought to the year 2008 at Rs.8,64,270/-. For calculation of built up area, Shri K.K. Agarwal has considered the circle rate of 2006 as determined by the District Magistrate Lucknow, for type-I construction at Rs.5500/-per square meter but the valuation was being done in the year 2008 by Shri Agarwal. For calculation of built up area, Shri K.K. Agarwal has considered the circle rate of 2006 as determined by the District Magistrate Lucknow, for type-I construction at Rs.5500/-per square meter but the valuation was being done in the year 2008 by Shri Agarwal. He considered the age of construction of the building which was almost 55 years old and has observed that accounting for the life of the property has been 80 years only, he applied depreciation and has proposed depreciation of 52.5% at Rs.5500/-per square meter as determined in the year 2006, therefore, the net rate of construction has been determined as Rs.2612/-per square meter. At the same time Mr. K.K. Agarwal has observed that he has inspected the building which is in good condition and, therefore, no depreciation was being considered and the rate of Rs.5500/-per square meter was followed to calculate the value of the covered area. Taking the value of the plot of land at Rs.8,64,270/-and value of the covered area at Rs.16,86,135/-the total value determined by Shri Agarwal is Rs.25,50,000/-. The annual rental value @ 7% of 25,50,000/-has been determined as Rs.1,78,500/-and the monthly rent having been determined accordingly and taking into consideration the area of the property the per square feet, rent has been determined at Rs.4.55 per square feet. 27. This valuation report of Shri K.K. Agarwal has only been mentioned in detail to show how unreasonable Circle Rates have been applied by the Valuer of the respondent and he has fixed the rate as Rs.4.55 per square feet which is even less than that which was granted by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. 28. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the Civil Appeal in its order dated 08.9.2008 has observed that Rs. 5/-per square feet was a very low amount and has, therefore, remanded the matter to this Court to determine fair rental value/ mesne profits afresh in accordance with law. 29. The report of Shri K.K. Agarwal relied upon by Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla being unreasonable, is rejected by this Court. 30. The question now before this Court is whether the report of the valuer which was submitted in the Civil Appeal by the revisionist-landlord should be taken to be a fairly reasonable report on the basis of which mesne profits can be determined by this Court. 31. 30. The question now before this Court is whether the report of the valuer which was submitted in the Civil Appeal by the revisionist-landlord should be taken to be a fairly reasonable report on the basis of which mesne profits can be determined by this Court. 31. This Court finds that report submitted by Shri Khajan Chandra dated 14.02.2008 has considered not only the Circle Rate and the annual rental value determined by the District Magistrate with effect from 01.4.2008 but has also considered exemplars of the properties situated adjoining to the shop in question and has also taken into account that the shops whose exemplars he was considering was also under tenancy under the State Government bodies. He has come to a conclusion that Rs.29.65 per square feet per month was a fair rent of the shop and this Court finds that observations made in the said report regarding open market rental rate being much higher, say Rs.60/-to Rs.80/-per square feet on Mahatma Gandhi Road in the year 2002-2008 which is now up to over Rs.100/-per square feet, is an observation that can be ignored having not been made on the basis of any documentary evidence and as an off hand remark only. 32. With regard to the rental value being determined as per prevalent market rates for which Shri Divyanshu Sahai has placed reliance upon several judgments as cited hereinabove. This Court finds that there is no determinable or identifiable criteria on which this Court can determine market value of the property of Mahatma Gandhi Market in Hazratganj area. The Court cannot make any 'guesstimate' as the Court is not an expert of such matters. Taking the report of Shri Khajan Chandra to be fairly reasonable assessment of rent, this Court is of the opinion that the rate of Rs.29.65 per square feet is admissible to the revisionist-landlord. 33. Since the judgment of the trial court is of 28.11.2005 and directs grant of mesne profits with effect from 08.7.2002 till the delivery of vacant and peaceful possession to the revisionist which was on 31.01.2008, the revisionist-landlord is also entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered by it in Mahant Narayan Dasjee Varu And Others (supra). 34. 34. It is ordered accordingly, that the respondent shall pay rent @ Rs.29.65 per square feet for the property in question which was around 3300 square feet and also interest thereon with effect from July 2002 to January 2008. 35. The revision stands disposed of.