JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This memorandum of appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC assailing the order passed in I.A.No.23 of 2017 in O.S.No.146 of 1999 dated 17.07.2018 by XII Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court at Secunderabad. 2. Appellant is the respondent – defendant and respondent is the petitioner – plaintiff in I.A.No.23 of 2017 in O.S.NO.146 of 1999. 3.1 Respondent – petitioner has filed I.A.No.23 of 2017 in O.S.NO.146 of 1999 under Order XX Rule 12 read with Section 151 of CPC praying the Court to appoint an advocate commissioner to ascertain the quantum of rents prevailing in the plaint schedule vicinity and pass such other order as the Court may deem fit and proper. The schedule of the property is ground floor premises bearing plot No.68 admeasuring plinth area of 1510 sq.ft., in a building known as ‘Marliz’ situated at Paiga Colony SP road Secunderabad, with specific boundaries. 3.2 It is stated in the affidavit in I.A.No.23 of 2017 that the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court Secunderabad was pleased to decreed the suit in O.S.No.146 of 1999 on 06.06.2005 and had directed the appellant – respondent – defendant to vacate and hand over the plaint schedule property and further held that the respondent – petitioner - plaintiff is at liberty to file a separate petition under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC for ascertaining the mesne profits. Appellant - respondent – defendant has preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.NO.146 of 1999 dated 06.06.2005 vide A.S.No.128 of 2005, which came to be dismissed on 28.08.2009 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 3.3 In paragraph No.19 of the judgment in A.S.NO.128 of 2005, the appellate Court opined that the respondent - petitioner – plaintiff is at liberty to file a separate petition for ascertainment of mesne profits. Appellant – respondent – defendant handed over the keys of the plaint schedule property to the respondent – petitioner – plaintiff on 30.11.2009. Plaint schedule property is situated at SP road, Secunderabad, which is located in the heart of the commercial locality and would easily fetch rent of Rs.350/- per day. Appellant – respondent – defendant handed over the keys of the plaint schedule property to the respondent – petitioner – plaintiff on 30.11.2009. Plaint schedule property is situated at SP road, Secunderabad, which is located in the heart of the commercial locality and would easily fetch rent of Rs.350/- per day. The appellant – respondent - defendant has to pay mesne profits from 01.04.1999 till 30.11.2009 for 3897 days and prayed to appoint an advocate commissioner to ascertain the quantum of rents prevailing in the vicinity of the plaint schedule property. 4. Appellant – respondent - defendant has filed his counter and contended that the appeal filed by him was dismissed on 28.08.2009 confirming the trial Court judgment dated 06.06.2005, thereafter he vacated the plaint schedule property and handed over the keys to the respondent – petitioner - plaintiff without allowing him to file EP which shows his intension as regards his landlord. I.A.No.23 of 2017 is filed claiming that an opportunity was given to the respondent – petitioner - plaintiff to file an application under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC is not true and the respondent – petitioner – plaintiff cannot claim any mesne profits even otherwise alternatively. The claim is too high, not comparable and not retainable to any particular premises of that area with that of the facilities that were given. The claim of the respondent is too preposterous and cannot be granted, prayed to dismiss the application. 5. Respondent – petitioner – plaintiff is examined as PW1, also examined PW2 – Rahemjigar Ali and got marked Ex.P1 – bunch of receipts (11 Nos). Appellant – respondent – defendant is examined as RW1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R9. 6. The learned Trial Court after going through the evidence adduced by the parties and the documents thereon has allowed I.A.No.23 of 2017 vide order dated 17.07.2018 quantifying mesne profits at the rate of Rs.10,500/- per month from April, 1999 onwards with periodic enhancement for every two years at the rate of Rs.2,000/-, which is impugned in the present appeal. 6. The learned Trial Court after going through the evidence adduced by the parties and the documents thereon has allowed I.A.No.23 of 2017 vide order dated 17.07.2018 quantifying mesne profits at the rate of Rs.10,500/- per month from April, 1999 onwards with periodic enhancement for every two years at the rate of Rs.2,000/-, which is impugned in the present appeal. 7.1 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the facts of the case in proper perspective and erred in allowing the application filed by the respondent – petitioner - plaintiff, did not examine the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the relief claimed and the relief sought in the petition is to appoint an advocate commissioner to ascertain the quantum of rents prevailing in the vicinity of the suit schedule property. The learned Judge did not consider the proposition of law as cited across the bar and therefore entire findings are perverse, illegal and contrary to the record. 7.2 Learned Judge ought to have seen that the appellant – respondent – defendant has brought Exs.R1 to R9 to substantiate the case which has not been appreciated. Learned Judge did not give sound reasons in granting the relief and the quantifying the mesne profits is not based on evidence in as much as the affidavit pleaded only states that the property can fetch Rs.350/- per day. Learned Judge without any pleading, without any prayer and without any evidence, gave an escalation or enhancement of Rs.2,000/- for every two years is based on no evidence. Counsel to substantiate his contentions has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Trojan and Company Vs. R.M.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar , (1953) 1 SCC 456, (ii) Akella Lalitha Vs. Konda Hanumantha Rao and Another , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 928 (iii) Bhatharaju Shankaraiah, Hyderabad and Others Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Delhi , 2024 SCC OnLine TS 4120 (iv) Sarvinder Singh and another Vs. Vipul Tandon , C.S. (OS) No. 2453/2015 & I.A. No. 16871/2015, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, dated 08.07.2025 and (v) Ramakka Vs. V. Nagesam , AIR 1925 MAD 145 . 8. Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Delhi , 2024 SCC OnLine TS 4120 (iv) Sarvinder Singh and another Vs. Vipul Tandon , C.S. (OS) No. 2453/2015 & I.A. No. 16871/2015, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, dated 08.07.2025 and (v) Ramakka Vs. V. Nagesam , AIR 1925 MAD 145 . 8. Learned counsel for the respondent – petitioner – plaintiff submits that the mesne profits awarded by the Trial Court at the rate of Rs.10,500/- is to be modified to Rs.12,000/- per month and also contended that the filing of petition to ascertain the mesne profits is not a requirement in law but a mere remainder to the Trial Court and the learned Trial Court has taken judicial notice of the fact that the petition schedule property is situated in the prime locality of SP road Secunderabad. The Hyper technical objection taken by the appellant – respondent – defendant for the first time is without any pleadings and contrary to law. In support of his contentions he relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Mohd. Abdul Qasim and Others Vs. District Collector, Warangal and others , I.A. No. 1 of 2018 and A.S. No. 145 of 1994, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, dated 20.07.2018, (ii) G. Subrahmanyam (Died) by LRs. Vs. G. Leela and others, 2011 SC OnLine AP 411 : 2011 (6) ALD 223 , (iii) Gopalakrishna Pillai and Others Vs. Meenakshi Ayal and Others , 1966 SCC OnLine SC 224 : AIR 1967 SC 155 , (iv) Reddi China Sattemma Vs. H. Suryanarayana (Died) by LRs . 1983 Supreme (AP) 498 , (v) Rattan Arya and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another , (1986) 3 SCC 385 , (vi) Saradamani Kandappan Vs. S. Rajalakshmi and Others , (2011) 12 SCC 18 , (vii) Ahmedsaheb (Dead) by LRs. and others Vs. Sayed Ismail , (2012) 8 SCC 516 , (viii) Magunta Kota Reddy (Died) and others Vs. Pothula Chendrasekhara Reddy, 1961 SCC OnLine AP 126 : AIR 1963 AP 42 , (ix) Karaka Varaqhalamma and another Vs. Velagala Simhachalam and others , 2010 SCC OnLine AP 225 : 2010 (3) ALD 725 (x) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Mohanjit Singh (Deceased) through legal heirs, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9419 = (2019) 263 DLT 192. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent – petitioner - plaintiff has filed his written arguments. 10. Velagala Simhachalam and others , 2010 SCC OnLine AP 225 : 2010 (3) ALD 725 (x) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Mohanjit Singh (Deceased) through legal heirs, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9419 = (2019) 263 DLT 192. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent – petitioner - plaintiff has filed his written arguments. 10. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material. 11. Now the points for consideration are: i) Whether the learned Trial Court without appointing an advocate commissioner to ascertain the quantum of rents prevailing in respect to the suit schedule property can go ahead to dispose of the application basing on the evidence. ii) whether the respondent – petitioner – plaintiff is entitled for modification of the order passed by the learned Trial Court in I.A.No.23 of 2017 in O.S.No.146 of 1999, dated 17.07.2018 in absence of any appeal to that effect. iii) Whether the order passed by the learned Trial Court in I.A.No.23 of 2017 in O.S.No.146 of 1999 dated 17.07.2018 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires interference of this Court. 12. It is apt to refer Order XX Rule 12 of CPC, which reads as under: 12. Decree for possession and mense profits:- (1) Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or mesne profits, the Court may pass a decree- (a) for the possession of the property; (b) for the rents which have accrued on the property during the period prior to the institution of th suit or directing an inquiry as to such rent; (ba) for the mense profits or directing an inquiry as to such mesne profits; (c) directing an inquiry as to rent or mesne profits from the institution of the suit until,- (i) the delivery of possession to the decree-holder, (ii) the relinquishment of possession by the judgment – debtor with notice to the decree – holder through the Court, (iii) the expiration of three years from the date of the decree, whichever event first occurs. (2) Where an enquiry is directed under clause (b) or clause (c), a final decree in respect of the rent or mesne profits shall be passed in accordance with the result of such inquiry. 13. (2) Where an enquiry is directed under clause (b) or clause (c), a final decree in respect of the rent or mesne profits shall be passed in accordance with the result of such inquiry. 13. The admitted facts of the case are that the schedule property was let out on 02.03.1998 and the quantum of rent fixed is at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month and the appellant – respondent – defendant has vacated the premises on 30.11.2009. Suit schedule property is at Paigah colony, SP road, Secunderabad and the extent is 1510 sq.fts. 14.1 Admittedly suit (O.S.No.146 of 1999) is filed by the respondent – petitioner - plaintiff for eviction and mesne profits. 14.2 The learned Trial Court in O.S.No.146 of 1999 has framed issue No.3 i.e., whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mesne profits claimed in the suit? 14.3 Eviction is ordered by the learned Trial Court in O.S.No.146 of 1999 vide judgment and decree dated 06.06.2005 and in respect of mesne profits the observation of the learned trial Court is as under: “Issue No.3: The subject matter of the suit is with regard to the prevailing market rate of rent in the suit locality. It is stated by the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is situated in the heart of the business area at Secunderabad and can easily fetch a sum of Rs.350/- per day and as such the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits @ Rs. 350/- per day ever since from 1.4.99. The contention put forward on behalf of the defendant is that even the termination notice Ex.Al is valid and binding and it must be deemed to have void by the plaintiff because he accepted the rents from 1.4.99 without any protest and therefore, the action on the part of the plaintiff in receiving the rents directly establishes, as there is no proper termination or the termination was not acted upon even by the plaintiff. For the reasons already discussed in previous issues, it must be held that the rental agreement Ex.A4 stood validly terminated by virtue of termination notice Ex.A1, and from 1.4.99, onwards, defendant was tenant holding over, liable to pay damages for the use and occupation, or mesne profits, to the plaintiff till ejectment. Except the sole evidence of the plaintiff, there is no evidence placed to establish that the area would easily fetch a sum of Rs. Except the sole evidence of the plaintiff, there is no evidence placed to establish that the area would easily fetch a sum of Rs. 350/- per day. In the absence of any convincing and acceptable evidence on this aspect at this stage, the court cannot decide the mesne profits entitled by the plaintiff from the defendant for his use and occupation from 1.4.99. Therefore, the plaintiff is at liberty to file a separate petition under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC for ascertaining mesne profits.” 14.4 Appellate Court in A.S.No.128 of 2005 has also granted liberty to the plaintiff (respondent herein) to file an application for determining mesne profits. 15. The mesne profits quantified by the trial Court in I.A.NO.23 of 2017 dated 17.07.2018 is as under: 1. That the petition of the petitioner be and the same is hereby allowed 2. That the quantifying mesne profits @ Rs.10,500/- per month from the month of April 1999 on wards till November 2009 with periodic enhancement for every two years @ Rs.2,000/- as follows: From April, 1999 till March, 2001 Rs.10,500/- p.m From April, 2001 till March, 2003 Rs.12,500/- p.m From April, 2003 till March, 2005 Rs.14,500/- p.m From April, 2005 till March, 2007 Rs.16,500/- p.m From April, 2007 till March, 2009 Rs.18,500/- p.m From April, 2009 till November 2009 Rs.20,500/- p.m. 16. Ex.A4 is the lease agreement dated 02.03.1998 marked in O.S.No.146 of 1999. In respect of enhancement of rent of the leased property, condition No.18 is as under: “18. The LESSEE also agrees to an increment in the Rent and Hire charges at the rate of 10% (Ten percent only) on the total rent amount at every lease renewal of ELEVEN months”. 17.1 The evidence of PW1 (respondent-petitioner-plaintiff) is that he is claiming mesne profits at the rate of Rs.350/- per day commencing from 01.04.1999 till 30.11.2009 i.e., for 3987 days amounting Rs.13,95,450/- and the area under occupation of the appellant herein – respondent - defendant was 1510 sq.ft at Paigah Colony, Secunderabad. 17.2 In his cross examination he stated that after disposal of the appeal, appellant - respondent – defendant handed over the keys on 30.11.2009 and further he has not filed any document to show that the petition schedule property fetches Rs.350/- per day from the year 1990. 17.2 In his cross examination he stated that after disposal of the appeal, appellant - respondent – defendant handed over the keys on 30.11.2009 and further he has not filed any document to show that the petition schedule property fetches Rs.350/- per day from the year 1990. Building was constructed in the year 1984 and apart from the appellant - respondent – defendant there were two more tenants. One portion of the building is vacant on the first floor and the ground floor is occupied by another tenant and he is paying Rs.21,000/- per month. He has not specifically mentioned in Ex.A1 – legal notice dated 19.03.1999 that the appellant- respondent-defendant is liable to pay Rs.350/- per day towards mesne profits. By the date of vacating the schedule property appellant - respondent – defendant was paying monthly rent of Rs.8,000/-. 17.3 He further stated in his cross examination that appellant - respondent – defendant used to run courier office in the suit schedule premises and also mentioned about the floods in the year 2000. Schedule property was provided with drinking water, borewell, toilets and parking place and the buildings in the vicinity are old. His building consists of one side nalla, two sides road and other side is of the neighbours. Other tenants residing other than the appellant - respondent – defendant in the suit schedule premises were paying Rs.700/- per day, another tenant is paying Rs.500/- per day for half space in the building and he has not enquired with other tenants of neighbouring buildings. PW1 denied the suggestion that the rent paid by the appellant - respondent – defendant at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month on the date of vacating the portion is reasonable and fair rent and also denied the suggestion that the claim made by him is unreasonable, unjust and not in consonance with the prevailing rents. 18.1 PW2-Raheem Jigar Ali deposed that he is doing bakery business at plot No.68, Paigah colony, SP road, Secunderabad, the area under his occupation is 1510 sq.ft. and he is paying rent of Rs.22,050/- exclusive of electricity and water charges. 18.1 PW2-Raheem Jigar Ali deposed that he is doing bakery business at plot No.68, Paigah colony, SP road, Secunderabad, the area under his occupation is 1510 sq.ft. and he is paying rent of Rs.22,050/- exclusive of electricity and water charges. TDS is deducted upon the rent paid, he has receipts showing the payments of rents to the landlords and his business is assessed to CST, APGST vide Pin No.28155098186 approximately rent per sq.ft is Rs.20/- to 25/- in the vicinity of petition schedule premises and got marked Ex.P1(bunch of receipts 11 in number). 18.2 In his cross examination he stated that there is no registered lease agreement between him and his landlord. Witness adds that there is an unregistered lease agreement between him and his landlord, he has record to show that the rent is Rs.22,050/- per month and he is paying rents to landlord through cheques. PW2 denied the suggestion that he is not a tenant of the respondent - petitioner – plaintiff, he is not paying such rents and giving false evidence. He also denied the suggestion that rent per sq.ft is only Rs.5/- in the vicinity of the suit schedule property. 19. Ex.P1 are the bunch of receipts marked through PW2 which shows the payments made to the respondent – petitioner – plaintiff by United Bakers for the months of April 2012 to December 2012 through cheques, the amount shown is Rs.21,000/-. The rental receipts for the month of January 2013 to April 2013 is also paid through cheques by PW2 and the rent shown therein is Rs.19,845/- 20. The evidence of the appellant – respondent - defendant as RW1 is the replica of his counter. In his cross examination he stated that after vacating the premises one United Bakers has taken the same on lease and he did not bothered to verify the rents paid. He verified plot No.23 where the prevailing rent in the ground floor is Rs.12,000/- for 1600 sq.ft and he did not file any document to substantiate the same. He verified first floor of the said premises and one portion is given on rent for Rs.6,000/-, he cannot say the area in occupation of the said premises and the appeal preferred by him against the eviction order was dismissed. He verified first floor of the said premises and one portion is given on rent for Rs.6,000/-, he cannot say the area in occupation of the said premises and the appeal preferred by him against the eviction order was dismissed. He has not preferred any appeal against the observations made for ascertainment of mesne profits in the appeal and he is not aware of the receipts issued by PW1 [respondent – petitioner – plaintiff] under Ex.P1 to the present tenant (PW2). He is not aware that the suit premises locality is fetching rent in between Rs.300/- to Rs.350/- per sq.ft and the area under the occupation was 1500 sq.ft. He has not filed any document to show that the rent paid by him is in accordance with the prevailing rents in the area of the premises. He denied the suggestion that Exs.R1 to R9 do not bear for ascertaining the mesne profits. 21.1 Ex.R1 is the letter dated 24.08.2000 addressed to the Station House Officer, Begumpet Police Station, Begumpet with regard to damages to properties and stocks due to flood and requested to register the complaint of losses and take up necessary official initiatives to extend support. 21.2 Ex.R2 is another letter dated 13.09.2000 addressed by the appellant-respondent-defendant to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Secunderabad Region, Secunderabad and requested to extend cooperation by giving a certificate to enable him to show to his customers and other authorities concerned due to recent heavy rains and floods. 21.3 Ex.R3 is the certificate issued by MRO Secunderabad dated 27.09.2000 stating that M/s. Professional Couriers Rasoolpura is effected and inundated due to heavy rains and floods from 23.08.2000 to 24.08.2000. 21.4 Ex.R4 is the certificate issued by Inspector of Police, Begumpet PS dated 15.09.2000, which states that in the recent floods, the localities in Begumpet PS limits including Paigah colony area was inundated with flood water and caused heavy damages to the public property. 21.5 Exs.R5 and R7 are the notices got issued by the appellant – respondent - defendant to the respondent – petitioner – plaintiff dated 16.09.2020 for repairing the premises in view of the damages caused due to floods. Ex.R6 is the cheque for Rs.8,000/- towards rent for the month of September 2000. Ex.R8 is the postal receipt and Ex.R9 is the postal acknowledgement card. 22. Ex.R6 is the cheque for Rs.8,000/- towards rent for the month of September 2000. Ex.R8 is the postal receipt and Ex.R9 is the postal acknowledgement card. 22. Respondent – petitioner - plaintiff in pursuance of the order in I.A.No.23 of 2017 dated 17.07.2018 valued the mesne profits at Rs.10,40,000/- and accordingly Court fee of Rs.12,826/- is paid vide challan No.62070 dated 14.08.2018 for preparation of the final decree. POINT NO.1: 23. Respondent – petitioner – plaintiff has also prayed to pass such other order/orders as the Court deems fit and proper in I.A.No.23 of 2017. 24.1 It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint, the court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an alternative case (See: Trojan). 24.2 It is settled law that relief not found on pleadings should not be granted (See: Akella Lalitha), which is followed in Bhatharaju Shankaraiah. 25. The learned trial Court observed in paragraph No.5 of its order that ‘At the stage of enquiry, petitioner – plaintiff [respondent herein] did not get commissioner report conducting local enquiry, but has led evidence as PW1 and examined PW2 respectively. PW2 was summoned by the Court. The appellant – respondent – defendant was examined as RW1”. The learned Trial Court thought it fit to dispose of the application for mesne profits basing on the evidence of PW1, PW2 with that of the evidence of RW1 coupled with of Exs.P1, R1 to R9 instead of appointing an advocate commissioner and fixed the quantum of mesne profits by exercising its discretion. 26. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant as stated supra in paragraph Nos.24.1 and 24.2 are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of those cases would not apply in the present case in view of the fact that the Trial Court has passed orders basing on the evidence adduced by the parties and has invoked other part of the prayer of the petition i.e., pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper” by exercising its discretion. Hence point No.1 is answered against the appellant. POINT NO.2: 27. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order passed by the learned Trial Court can be modified and enhance the mesne profits to Rs.12,000/- instead of Rs.10,500/-. 28. In Mohd. Abdul Qasim 6 the submission of the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent therein is that it was not possible for the State to file an appeal against a finding on one of the issues and appeal lies only against a ‘decree’ but not against a finding and Order XLI Rule 33 CPC enables the Appellate Court to decide any question between the parties. 29. The Appellate Court should have the fullest power to do complete justice between the parties under Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC. The rule postulates that the Appellate Court has the power to pass a decree, and make an order which ought to have been passed or made as the case may require, even if the parties have not filed any appeal or objection. Appellate Court can always consider the subsequent events as to facts and law and grant relief [See: G. Subrahmanyam]. 30. It is the case of the respondent – petitioner - plaintiff in the plaint itself that the schedule property would easily fetch a sum of Rs.350/- per day and he is entitled to claim the same from 01.04.1999. The learned Trial Court has taken Rs.350/- per day and calculated for 30 days and arrived at Rs.10,500/- per month as rent. The admitted rent as on the date of commencement of the lease [01.05.1998] is Rs.8,000/-. Though the Trial Court has quantified the mesne profits at the rate of one and half times of admitted rent i.e., Rs.8,000/- + Rs.4,000/- = Rs.12,000/-, exercised its discretion and arrived at an amount of Rs.10,500/- per month. 31. Though PW2 deposed that he is paying rent of Rs.22,050/- per month but his chief examination is silent when he has occupied the property on lease but the rental receipts are pertaining to 2012 and 2013 [Ex.P1 – bunch of receipts 11 in number] and admittedly the appellant - respondent – defendant has vacated the premises on 30.11.2009 but whereas the rental receipts under Ex.P1 are from 2012 and 2013. 32. 32. The learned Trial Court has fixed the mesne profits at the rate of 350/- per day as stated in the plaint for 30 days and arrived at Rs.10,500/-, rightly exercised its discretion and reasonably enhanced the mesne profits amount for every two years at the rate of Rs.2,000/- as the appellant – respondent – defendant was in unlawful possession of the suit property. 33. This Court is of the view that the respondent – petitioner – plaintiff is not entitled for modification of the order in view of the reasons above as the learned Trial Court has property exercised its discretion in fixing the mesne profits. Hence point No.2 is answered against the respondent – petitioner – plaintiff. POINT NO.3 34. Now I have to see whether the learned Trial Court has passed a reasoned order in quantifying the mesne profits based on the evidence adduced by the parties. 35. Mere guess work cannot be used for ascertaining the rent. This Court cannot make a guess work in thin air. Guess work cannot take the form of evidence. Coming to a figure which might be the rent of the area on its own without any material is not permissible in law. Thus, in the absence of any evidence, either oral or documentary, this Court is not in a position to calculate any mesne profits (See: Sarvinder Singh). 36. In a suit for mesne profits the burden is always held to be on the plaintiff to prove the amount (See: Ramakka). 37. The plaintiff has no cause of action on the date of the institution of the suit, and it is not possible for him to plead this cause of action or to value it or to pay court – fees thereon at the time of the institution of the suit [See: Gopalakrishna Pillai]. 38. "It is thus well settled position of law that when a preliminary decree has been passed and a direction therein has been given to ascertain mesne profits, it is not incumbent for the decree-holder to file an application to ascertain mesne profits. When he files an application, it is only a reminder to the Court to take steps to pass final decree and ascertainment of mesne profits is one such step in that direction." (See: Reddy China Sattemma) and followed in Karaka Varaqhalamma. 39. When he files an application, it is only a reminder to the Court to take steps to pass final decree and ascertainment of mesne profits is one such step in that direction." (See: Reddy China Sattemma) and followed in Karaka Varaqhalamma. 39. We are entitled to take judicial notice of the enormous multifold increase of rents through-out the country, particularly in urban areas. It is common knowledge today that the accommodation which one could have possibly got for Rs.400 per month in 1973 will today cost at least five times more.....” (See: Rattan Arya (3 Judge Bench)) 40.1 The third quarter of the twentieth century saw a very slow but steady increase in prices. But a drastic change occurred from the beginning of the last quarter of the twentieth century. There has been a galloping inflation and prices of immovable properties have increased steeply, by leaps and bounds. Market values of properties are no longer stable or steady. We can take judicial notice of the comparative purchase power of a rupee in the year 1975 and now, as also the steep increase in the value of the immovable properties between then and now. It is no exaggeration to say that properties in cities, worth a lakh or so in or about 1975 to 1980, may cost a crore or more now. 40.2 This Court held that the said process of determination under the Act, which was reasonable when the law was made, became arbitrary and unreasonable in view of constant escalation of prices due to inflation and corresponding rise (sic fall) in money value with the passage of time.” [See: Saradamani Kandappan]. 41. It is needless to emphasise that admission of a party in the proceedings either in the pleadings or oral is the best evidence and the same does not need any further corroboration [See: Ahmedsaheb]. 42. The plaintiff in this case had no special means of knowing the exact income from the lands during the relevant period and he was, therefore, not estopped from claiming a larger sum as mesne profits than what was claimed in his plaint [See: Magunta Kota Reddy]. 43. Courts are entitled to take judicial notice of the prevalent market rents while awarding mesne profits even where documentary evidence is not lead and that the calculation of mesne profits involves some amount of guess work [See: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd]. 43. Courts are entitled to take judicial notice of the prevalent market rents while awarding mesne profits even where documentary evidence is not lead and that the calculation of mesne profits involves some amount of guess work [See: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd]. 44.1 In Reddi China Sattemma and Karaka Varaqhalamma it is held that it is not incumbent for the decree holder to file an application to ascertain mesne profits, when he files an application it is only a remainder to the Court to take steps to pass final decree and ascertainment of mesne profits is one such step in that direction. The learned Trial Court thought it fit to dispose of the application for mesne profits basing on the evidence instead of appointing an advocate commissioner to ascertain the mesne profits. 44.2. The learned Trial Court has taken judicial notice while fixing the quantum of mesne profits prevailing in the vicinity of S.P.Road, Secunderabad. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent in Rattan Arya, Saradamani Kandappan, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, are applicable to the case on hand. 44.3. I have gone through the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in Sarvinder Singh, I find that they are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of the case would not apply in the present case. Respondent – petitioner has discharged his burden while ascertaining the mesne profits. 45. This Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the order basing on the evidence adduced by the parties instead of appointing an advocate commissioner. The learned Trial Court has rightly taken into consideration that the periodic enhancement of the mesne profits for every two years at the rate of Rs.2,000/- appears to be reasonable as the schedule property is in prime locality of Paigh Colony, SP Road, Secunderabad. 46. The respondent – petitioner – plaintiff has already filed execution petition vide E.P.No.4 of 2018 in the month of October 2018 after passing of the order in I.A.No.23 of 2017 in O.S.No.146 of 1999 dated 17.07.2018 for issuing warrant of arrest and detention of the appellant - respondent – defendant in civil prison for non payment of balance of Rs.8,50,000/-. 47. 47. Appellant – respondent – defendant has not made out any case to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Trial Court in I.A.No.23 of 2017 in O.S.No.146 of 1999 dated 17.07.2018. 48. This Court is of the view that the reasoning of the learned Trial Court is based on the evidence adduced by the parties and the enhancement of Rs.2,000/- for every two years is reasonable. In view of the reasons above, there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 49. Appeal is dismissed without costs. Interim orders granted if any shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.