JUDGMENT : Harkesh Manuja, J. 1. Appellant is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, vide which judgment and decree dated 11.01.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) , Mohali was upheld and the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff for possession as well as recovery of damages for illegal use of his premises, stood decreed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the present appeal are that with respect to house No. 1683 (ground & first floor) situated at Phase-3B2, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession with further prayer for recovery of Rs.2,40,000/- for use and occupation of the said house illegally from April 2012 to April 2018 onwards till its vacation and for recovery of Rs.20,000/- per month as damages for use and occupation of the said house till the delivery of possession. Respondent-plaintiff claimed himself to be the owner of demised property vide mutation dated 03.01.1979 and also averred in the plaint that he raised roof of the said house on 08.03.2009. It was further averred in the plaint that the appellant/defendant prepared a fictitious rent-deed dated 27.7.2006 and forcibly occupied the house in the month of April, 2012 after beating his Chowkidar, namely, Mukesh Kumar. Respondent/plaintiff even reported the matter to police as well vide letters dated 07.04.2012, 09.04.2012 and 16.04.2012 but to no avail. Accordingly, suit was filed for vacant possession of the demised premises as well as for the recovery of damages by adding that he wanted to settle and start business in S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. 2.1 On the other hand, stand taken by appellant/defendant was that rent-deed was neither forged; nor fictitious and that the appellant/defendant took the demised premises on rent in the year 2006 from the authorized agent of respondent/plaintiff. Initially, the relationship between the appellant/defendant & respondent/plaintiff was good and cordial, but later, some of his agents started coming to the house and threatening him and other family members to vacate the same on the pretext that they were to sell the said house to someone else after getting it vacated from them. 2.2 Vide judgment and decree dated 11.01.2016 passed the by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohali, suit filed at the instance of respondent was decreed as appellant failed to prove rent deed in his favour. 2.2 Vide judgment and decree dated 11.01.2016 passed the by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohali, suit filed at the instance of respondent was decreed as appellant failed to prove rent deed in his favour. It was further held by the learned trial Court that respondent/plaintiff was entitled for sum of Rs.2,40,000/- for use and occupation of the house in suit illegally during the period from April, 2012 to April, 2013 and further amount of Rs.6,60,000/- for additional use and occupation of the house from May, 2013 to January, 2016 along with that and additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- was also directed to be paid by appellant to respondent in the shape of damages. 2.3 Aggrieved thereof, the respondent/ defendant filed first Appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, who vide judgment and decree dated 31.5.2024, not only upheld the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, but also held that respondent was entitled for recovery of mesne profits @ Rs.20,000/- from February 2016 till May, 2024, amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- (100 months X Rs.20,000/-). 2.4 It is the aforesaid two judgments and decrees which have been assailed by way of present Regular Second Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant came in possession of the property in question prior to April, 2012, contrary to the story as alleged by the respondent-plaintiff in his plaint. In order to establish his assertion, learned counsel referred to Exh.D-2 (Ration Card) wherein it was recorded that the said document was prepared in the name of appellant-defendant by the authorities on 26.03.2012. He also submitted that ration card produced by PW-5 in support of his deposition as Exh.PW-5/F thus, cannot be discarded being the document produced by the respondent-plaintiff himself. 3.1 Referring to statement of PW-5, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prior possession of the appellant was also corroborated from the fact that the said witness even deposed that in the records relating to the electricity connection of the demised premises, the documents were produced by the appellant-defendant Karam Singh and also relied upon Exh.PW-5/G i.e. a communication dated 08.10.2008, purportedly in his name. In view of all these documentary evidences, learned counsel submitted that contrary to the stance taken by the respondent that the appellant came in possession of the demised property in April, 2012 the same was infact rented out in the year 2006 and thus the suit was not maintainable. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel placed reliance upon a judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Sawan Ram v. Gobinda Ram, 1980 (1) RCR (Rent) 21. 3.2 To substantiate his case, learned counsel also relied upon the discrepancies in the cross-examination of PW-1 wherein there was little variance about the answers to certain material questions. He also pointed out that original rent deed dated 22.07.2006 was retained by the respondent-landlord and this fact was duly deposed in the examination-in-chief by the appellant-defendant while appearing as DW-1 with their being no specific rebuttal to it in the cross-examination. 3.3 Regarding the mistake about the factum of death of father of the plaintiff in the rent note, learned counsel tried to explain that the same was got typed by Major Jagjit Singh and if at all any mistake was committed in this regard, it was on his part. Lastly, it was contended by him that the damages awarded @ Rs.20,000/- per month were excessive as no documentary evidence in this regard was brought on record. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that as regards the proof of construction of property in question being concluded in the year 2009, all documents/proofs in the form of Exh.P-29 to Exh.P-56 and Exh.P-57 were produced and proved on record. He submitted that, on the contrary, appellant neither proved the rent deed by leading any documentary evidence or through the oral deposition of any witness and even the most important witness Major Jagjit Singh, no evidence was brought on record. 4.1 To counter the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, he submitted that the documents relied upon by the appellant, including Exh.D-2 were never proved on record as none of the official witness was ever produced to prove the same and a specific objection regarding the mode of proof was raised in the beginning of statement of cross-examination of the appellant-defendant and thus these were not to be relied upon. It was further submitted that the damages were rightly assessed and awarded by the Courts bellow and the same thus warrant no interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as the records of the case. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. 6. Before adverting to the contentions raised by ld. Counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to examine the facts/evidence relevant in the present case as well as the legal position surrounding those facts. In view of the mutation dated 03.01.1979, ownership of the respondent qua demised premises is not doubted. As a natural consequences of the same, it has not been disputed by the appellant; either in the written statement of while deposing as DW1, wherein he duly admitted the ownership of respondent-plaintiff qua the demised premises. In view of the aforementioned circumstances, the onus was on the appellant to establish appropriate legal right to continue his possession in the demised premises while opposing the remedy of his eviction, availed by respondent-plaintiff. For the purpose of establishing his right, plea taken by the appellant was that he was tenant on this property since 27.07.2006 on account of rent deed entered between him and Major Jagjit Singh, who according to him, was the authorised agent of the respondent. 6.1 To prove the same, a photocopy of the rent deed was brought on record as exhibit-D1 and it was averred that the original copy of this rent deed was with the landlord. A perusal of this rent deed dated 27.07.2006 reveals that it was entered between respondent Harbans Singh and Major Jagjit Singh as landlord and appellant as tenant. It is his admission that landowner/respondent Harbans Singh was present when he signed the rent agreement but he offered no explanation as to why Harbans Singh did not sign the agreement himself. 6.2 Appellant during his cross examination stated that he came to know about the ownership of the respondent during the suit only and it was Major Jagjit Singh who was dealing with him throughout his tenancy. But, apart from this Photostat copy of the rent deed, appellant was not able to prove his tenancy by any measures, especially since July 2006. But, apart from this Photostat copy of the rent deed, appellant was not able to prove his tenancy by any measures, especially since July 2006. Firstly, he was not able to show by any means that Major Jagjit Singh was authorised by the respondent in this behalf, in view of the specific stand taken by the respondent that neither he knew Major Jagjit Singh; nor he ever authorised him. Even no effort was made to get the testimony of Major Jagjit Singh or any person in his close relation to prove the relationship of Major Jagjit Singh and the respondent. Secondly, neither he was able to identify any witness of the rent deed nor were they summoned by him during the evidence to prove his claim. Most importantly, there was no evidence with respect to the very basic element of any tenancy i.e. rent being paid by him as no rent receipt or any electronic transaction was brought on record by him in this regard. 6.3 In the absence of any corroborating or supporting evidence with respect to the rent deed, both the Courts rightly rejected the claim of the appellant regarding his tenancy. Only evidence in support of the rent deed was the statement of the appellant. However, a perusal of his statement as well as cross examination clearly shows that not only he made regular improvements in his version, but also made many inconsistent statements. While there are many such statements, few of them which goes to the root of this matter are mentioned below: (a) In cross-examination dated 03.12.2015, appellant stated that he never remained on rent earlier except the suit property, but during his cross-examination dated 03.02.2024 (for proceeding in relation to Karamvir Singh being joined as legal representative of respondent), he stated that he used to live as tenant for about 7-8 years before 2011, in house number 1566, Phase 3B2, Mohali. This fact goes against his projected case that he was a tenant since 2006. (b) In his cross-examination dated 02.02.2015, appellant stated that he came to know about the ownership of the respondent at the time of suit only, but in the same statement, he also stated that he never paid rent to Harbans Singh as he refused to accept it. (b) In his cross-examination dated 02.02.2015, appellant stated that he came to know about the ownership of the respondent at the time of suit only, but in the same statement, he also stated that he never paid rent to Harbans Singh as he refused to accept it. If the appellant did not know that respondent was the owner/landlord of demised property, then there was no reason for him to offer any rent to Harbans Singh. 6.4 Apart from that, there were many instances where appellant deposed inconsistently. For e.g., while appearing on 02.02.2015, he stated that he does not have any property anywhere else, whereas on 31.01.2024 he stated that he owned agricultural land in his village. Similarly, during the proceedings for joining of legal representative of the respondent, while on 06.02.2024, he stated that he did not go to the village of Harbans Singh whereas he has already provided all the details with respect to his visit to village of the respondent. So many inconsistencies in his deposition ensured that his statement was not trustworthy and no credence could be given to his statement in support of the rent agreement. 7. Adverting back to the arguments raised by ld. Counsel for the appellant, it can be observed that if the aforementioned factual aspects of this case are taken into consideration, it is apparent that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant does not touch the root of the case and are peripheral only. The primary thrust of his arguments is only to show that appellant was in possession of demised property even before 2012. One of the foremost reason both the Courts below disbelieved the rent agreement dated 27.07.2006 was that in the said agreement before the name of the father of the appellant, “late” was specified, while his father was alive when this agreement was executed. In view of that, both the Courts believed that this rent agreement was prepared ante-dated. Learned counsel for the appellant explained this lacuna by submitting that this has been the consistent stand of the appellant that this agreement was prepared by Major Jagjit Singh and for the this fault, it is only he who can be blamed and not the appellant. However, this Court does not find much merit in this submission as this information is personal and drawn from the knowledge of the appellant only. However, this Court does not find much merit in this submission as this information is personal and drawn from the knowledge of the appellant only. Any other person could become aware about the same only on this information being provided by the appellant of any documents been provided by him. Both these situations would indicate that whenever this document was prepared, his father was not alive. In such circumstances, it becomes apparent that this document was prepared on a later date which completely falsifies the stand taken by the appellant. 7.1 Even the other documents relied upon by the appellant cannot come to his rescue in view of the fact that a specific and categoric objection was taken from the side of respondent regarding the mode of proof of these documents. Despite these objections, no remedial steps were taken by the appellant to examine the relevant witnesses to prove these documents, which were not proved in accordance with law, no inference can be drawn in favour of the appellant. 7.2 There is also no substance in other argument that possession of the appellant on property prior to April, 2012 can also be presumed on the basis of Exh.D-2 (Ration Card) wherein it was recorded that the said document was prepared in the name of appellant-defendant by the authorities on 26.03.2012. In factual circumstances of the present case, appellant admitted that he got his passport renewed on 11.02.2019 at House No. 1566, Phase 3B2, Mohali. Passport is the most critical document and prepared only after due police verification of the residential address of an applicant. If appellant was able to get this document prepared for another address, then his ration card having the address of demised property cannot lead to the presumption that appellant was residing on the given address even before 2012. In this context, cross-examination of the appellant which came to be recorded on 03.02.2024 is relevant to peruse here, wherein, he admitted that none of his identify documents pertain to the demised property. Relevant part of this cross-examination is reproduced hereunder: “I have brought the record i.e. my, Aadhaar Card, Voter Card and the Passport. The Photocopy of Aadhaar Card is EX-RW-1/A, Photocopy of Voter Card is Ex-RW1/B, Photocopy of Passport is Ex-RW1/C. I do not remember when my voter card was issued for the first time. Vol. it is mentioned on the voter card. The Photocopy of Aadhaar Card is EX-RW-1/A, Photocopy of Voter Card is Ex-RW1/B, Photocopy of Passport is Ex-RW1/C. I do not remember when my voter card was issued for the first time. Vol. it is mentioned on the voter card. It is correct that all my above mentioned documents are of House No. 1566, Phase 3B2. Mohali. I used to reside there as tenant before 2011. I remained in that house as tenant for about 7-8 years, my aadhaar card was issued alongwith my voter card in the year 2006 approximately and recently I have taken the copy of my aadhaar card from the aadhaar portal. It is correct that my passport was renewed on 11/02/2019 and the address house no. 1566, phase 3B2. Mohali. It is correct that the passport is issued/renewed on the address where the person resides. Vol. Since my aadhaar card and voter card were having the said address so the passport was issued of the same address. On 11/02/2019 I was not residing in house no. 1566, Phase 3B2, Mohali, it is correct that when I got my passport corrected in the year 2019, the police verification qua me was done. I do not remember the name of the persons who has given witness for me in police verification. It is wrong to suggest that I gave wrong statement that I am residing in H.No. 1566; Phase 3B2. Mohali. I do not remember the name of the owner of the house no. 1566. My tenancy in house no. 1566, consisting of 3 rooms and I was paying rent Rs.7000/- in cash. The renewed passport has come through RD post at house no. 1566., Phase 3B2, Mohali, the new tenant of above said house has informed me and I came to receive the same. After hearing the question I do not need any assistance of any instrument of human being to answer the same as I can understand the questions. I am having no document qua my identity in respect of house no. 1683, phase 3B2, Mohali, even I have not open my bank account qua this address. Even my wife and children having identity documents and bank account in respect of house no. I am having no document qua my identity in respect of house no. 1683, phase 3B2, Mohali, even I have not open my bank account qua this address. Even my wife and children having identity documents and bank account in respect of house no. 1566, phase 3B2, Mohali.” A perusal of the above statement shows that while preparing his documents, appellant acted in a manipulative manner and even from the documentary evidence, it was difficult to draw presumption regarding his possession as all his identity documents belonged to H. No. 1566, Phase 3B2, Mohali, wherein, he admittedly resided long back, while his deposition was recorded on 03..02.2024. 7.3 No doubt that documents for taking the electricity connection with respect to the demised property were produced by appellant-Karamjit Singh, but application in this regard was filed on 25.10.2013 as evident from Ex-PW5/A and since this document was post April 2012, it nowhere helped the case of the appellant. Even all the electricity bills or landline bills brought on record by him were post April, 2012 and lead anywhere. Rather, as pointed out by learned Counsel for the respondent, perusal of Ex-PW5/C, wherein he stated that he purchased this property from respondent, it clearly manifested the malafide intentions of the appellant. 7.4 While the incongruencies in the cross-examination of respondent are minor and can be attributed to his old age as he was 80 years old at the time of deposition, thus do not affect the merits of the case in a substantial manner as onus of proving that appellant happened to be his tenant was always upon him only and the factum of tenancy was not to be drawn from inconsistency of statements. 7.5 Reliance placed upon Ex.PW5/G was also misplaced; rather the same again went on to show the misconduct of the appellant. Firstly, this letter was sent to the appellant at House No. 520, Manimajra, Chandigarh, secondly, this document disclosed that allotment of demised property was done in the name of appellant being in knowledge of the fact that respondent was an old age person staying in his village, intended to play mischief with him. 8. Firstly, this letter was sent to the appellant at House No. 520, Manimajra, Chandigarh, secondly, this document disclosed that allotment of demised property was done in the name of appellant being in knowledge of the fact that respondent was an old age person staying in his village, intended to play mischief with him. 8. In the factual circumstances of the present case as there was no evidence of taking premises on rent and it was admitted by the appellant that he did not maintain any record of accounts of payment of rent, there was no basis for holding that relationship of landlord and tenant was proved and accordingly, appellant cannot draw any benefit from the judgment in Sawan Ram’s case (supra) relied upon by him. It view of the above circumstances both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact in favour of respondent that appellant was not a tenant in the demised premises, and rightly so, as nothing concrete was brought into the notice of this Court even to interfere with such finding. 9. Once it was held that the appellant was in illegal possession of the demised property, it cannot be denied that he was liable to pay the damages/ mesne profits for illegal use and occupation of the house in question till the delivery of possession to respondent. Considering the fact that appellant was residing in one kanal house having four rooms, situated in the most renowned area of Mohali, SAS Nagar, both the Courts below rightly observed the rate of rent being quite high. Even then, both the Courts below while awarding the damages/mesne profits, assessed the rental income only at the moderate rate of Rs.20,000/- per month. The gradual increases in the rate of rent since 2012 was not taken into consideration and awarded to the respondent. Be that as it may, on this aspect this court does not intended to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court and damages awarded by both the Courts below are upheld and are specified as below: Court Date For Amount Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Mohali 11.01.2016 Use and occupation (From Apr, 2012 to Apr, 2013 + May, 2013 to Jan, 2016 + Damage) Rs. 9,50,000/- (2,40,000 + 6,60,000 + 50,000) Add. Dist. Judge, Mohali 31.05.2024 Mesne profits from Feb 2016 till May, 2024 Rs. Division) Mohali 11.01.2016 Use and occupation (From Apr, 2012 to Apr, 2013 + May, 2013 to Jan, 2016 + Damage) Rs. 9,50,000/- (2,40,000 + 6,60,000 + 50,000) Add. Dist. Judge, Mohali 31.05.2024 Mesne profits from Feb 2016 till May, 2024 Rs. 20,00,000/- 9.1 The only lacuna this court finds while granting the damages is that no interest has been awarded to the respondent for the delay on the part of appellant. This fact gains significance that since 2016, respondent despite having a decree in his favour, did not receive any amount till date despite having a decree in his favour, did not receive any amount till date and if no interest was awarded, even after 8 years he was to get the same. It was held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Suneja Towers private Limited v. Anita Merchant, (2023) 9 SCC 194 that interest is not a penalty or punishment, but it is the normal accretion on capital. Therefore, in exercise of power vested under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC and to do complete justice between the parties on the amount awarded by the Courts below, respondent is held entitled for interest @ 9% per annum since the date of judgment till payment is made by the appellant. 9.2 Last but not the least, it is pertinent to note in the present case that suit was filed by respondent in 2012 and now it is 2024 but still the respondent (and his legal representatives) has not been able to get the possession despite the appellant having no concrete evidence in his favour. Appellant used all legal technicalities available to him to delay the proceedings to keep possession with him. As pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent, the malafide of the appellant was also evident from the document Ex-PW5/C, in which while getting the electricity connection, it was represented by him before the electricity department that he had purchased this property from the respondent. This fact further shows the oblique ways adopted by the appellant to keep the respondent away from enjoying the fruits of his hard earned property. Therefore, not only in law, even on the basis of equity, appellant was not entitled for any kind of leniency to be shown in his favour. Conclusion 10. In view of the discussion made in the foregoing paras, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. Therefore, not only in law, even on the basis of equity, appellant was not entitled for any kind of leniency to be shown in his favour. Conclusion 10. In view of the discussion made in the foregoing paras, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. It is further made clear that apart from the damages which appellant was liable to pay to the respondent, respondent would also be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from February 2016 till May 2024, on that amount as awarded by lower Appellate Court. 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.