JUDGMENT : (Tirumala Devi Eada, J.) These two appeals are filed by the appellant(s) aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2007 passed in O.S.No.60 of 2001 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the plaintiff committee is a registered Board under the Joint Stock Companies Act and it is the owner of the cellar, ground and first floor forming part of premises bearing M.No.9-4-67, situated at St.Mary’s Road, Secunderabad and that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff in the ground floor covering an area of 3400 Sft, a locker admeasuring an area of 600 Sft and parking space of 500 sft. The monthly rent for the said premises was Rs.25,000/- along with exclusive electricity and water consumption charges and that the plaintiff has leased out the said premises on oral tenancy and that there is no registered lease deed between the plaintiff and the defendant. That the defendant used to pay monthly rents on or before 10th of every month in advance. The plaintiff instructed the defendant bank to credit the monthly rent in plaintiff’s account and that on reconciliation of the pass book, they noticed that the rent of August, 1998 was not credited and it was brought to the notice of the defendant for violating the terms and conditions of oral tenancy. Thus, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant and that the defendant failed to comply with the demand inspite of several requests and that the defendant was continuing in the said premises holding over from month to month tenancy ever since August, 1998. Plaintiff is the owner of the building and it is managed by Sikh Gurudwara Prabhandh Committee and that the plaintiff also has a dispensary in the said premises and free medicines are being given to patients along with a school being run for the benefit of poor students. Plaintiff is the owner of the building and it is managed by Sikh Gurudwara Prabhandh Committee and that the plaintiff also has a dispensary in the said premises and free medicines are being given to patients along with a school being run for the benefit of poor students. It is their case that they are doing yeoman services to the society and that number of pilgrims from several places visit Gurudwara and that the plaintiff has to provide accommodation to the pilgrims and that the plaintiff wants to open a diagnostic centre in the portion of the suit property and it is also causing hardship to the plaintiff while holding meetings and for carrying on day to day administration, thereby it has informed the defendant about its personal requirement and requested the defendant to vacate the premises but the defendant failed to do so, as such, the plaintiff issued a legal notice for termination of tenancy on 01.05.2001 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to handover the vacant possession by 01.07.2001. It was also brought to the notice of the defendant that in case it disputes their tenancy month, it may vacate the premises on the corresponding date. The defendant has acknowledged the notice but has not vacated the premises instead it has issued a reply notice dated 23.05.2000 alleging that the lease was for a period of five years with a further renewal for another five years at an enhancement of 20% over the existing rent and that the said pleas of the defendant are false and after issuance of legal notice, the defendant credited the rent for the month of August, 1998 to the plaintiff’s account. Thus, getting vexed with the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff has tentatively claimed damages @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month and that it has a bonafide requirement of the premises and thus, the suit is filed. 4. The defendant has filed its written statement admitting the tenancy and also the rate of monthly rent and also admitted that there is no registered lease deed but at the same time the defendant denies the allegation of plaintiff that the tenancy is oral. He further admitted the monthly rent to be payable on or before 10th of every month in advance. He further admitted the monthly rent to be payable on or before 10th of every month in advance. With regard to the non-payment of rent for August, 1998, the defendant has stated that due to clerical error, the lapse has occurred and it was not put to the notice of the bank, till they received the legal notice. Therefore, on receipt of legal notice they have remitted the said rent into the plaintiff’s account. They contended that the notice dated 01.05.2000 is not as per 106 of the TP Act, thus they replied. It is their case that the plaintiff agreed to renew the lease for another five years with an enhancement of rent by 20% over the existing rent and that the existing rent was Rs.25,100/- and an increase on 20% would be Rs.30,100/- per month and that they have also addressed a letter dated 21.03.2000 about the expiry of initial period of five years and requested to execute a fresh lease deed for another five years and that they have also addressed a letter on 23.04.1994 to the plaintiff stating that the suit premises is offered by the plaintiff has been tentatively accepted by the defendant subject to the terms and conditions stated therein and the period of lease was specifically mentioned in the said letter and that they have paid an advance rent of Rs.75,300/- to the plaintiff and the plaintiff requested that the said amount be allowed to be retained with them as advance rent till the said premises is vacated by the defendant. That the plaintiff never responded to their requests made through their letters dated 27.10.1995 and 30.12.1997 to execute the lease deed extending lease period and on 05.08.2000 the defendant paid another amount of Rs.29,091/- towards electricity consumer deposit for the suit premises and that the present suit claiming damages is imaginary and illusive in nature and thus, needs to be dismissed. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following points for consideration: “1) Whether there is valid notice under sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property and for vacant possession of the said property? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,56,590/- together with interest at 24% p.a. from the defendant, as being claimed by the plaintiff? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property and for vacant possession of the said property? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,56,590/- together with interest at 24% p.a. from the defendant, as being claimed by the plaintiff? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- p.m. from the date of filing of the suit? 5) To what relief?” 6. At the time of trial, the plaintiff got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the defendant, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B8 were marked. 7. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit with costs and held that the plaintiff is entitled for damages @Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of termination of tenancy i.e. on 02.07.2000 till the vacation of premises i.e. on 05.09.2005 with interest @12% p.a. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, CCCA No.345 of 2007 is preferred by the defendant seeking to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, while CCCA No.35 of 2008 is preferred by the plaintiff seeking mesne profits. 8. Heard the submissions of Sri R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel for the plaintiff and M/s.Pearl Law Associates, appearing for the defendant. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant in CCCA No.345 of 2007 has submitted that the judgment is devoid of merits and the trial Court failed to observe glaring contradictions and inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s evidence and that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on proper perspective and has committed a serious error in decreeing the suit. The trial Court failed to consider the documents filed by the defendant, especially their letters requesting for execution of lease deed and has just believed the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. He further argued that the trial court has not appreciated that there was a renewal of lease under Ex.B2 for a further period of five years up to 22.06.2005. He therefore, prayed to set aside the judgment and decree by allowing this appeal. 10. He further argued that the trial court has not appreciated that there was a renewal of lease under Ex.B2 for a further period of five years up to 22.06.2005. He therefore, prayed to set aside the judgment and decree by allowing this appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff in CCCA No.35 of 2008 has submitted that though the plaintiff claimed Rs.1,00,000/- per month towards damages, the trial Court has awarded only Rs.25,000/- per month which is very low and the Court below failed to consider that the premises is situated in a prime locality at St.Mary’s Road, Secunderabad and has awarded very meager amount towards damages. In fact, their suit was supposed to be decreed as per their claim and that the trial Court has failed to take into consideration the admissions made by DW1 in his evidence. He therefore, prayed to allow their appeal by awarding damages @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, and further prayed to dismiss the CCCA No.345 of 2007. 11. Based on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the plaintiffs in O.S.No.60 of 2001 are entitled to claim damages from the defendant? If so, to what extent? 2) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is sustainable under law and in facts? 3) To what relief? 12. POINT NO.1: a) It is the case of the plaintiff that it is a registered committee vide Ex.A1 that the defendant is their tenant under oral tenancy paying rent of Rs.25,000/- per month and committed default from August, 1998, thus, they are claiming damages @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The same is reiterated by PW1 during his chief examination. Though, it is alleged in the plaint that the defendant has committed default from August, 1998, it is brought out in the evidence of PW1 that the defendant has credited the said rent for the month of August, 1998. It is also not out of place to mention that the notice under Section 106 of the TP Act was issued by the plaintiff on 01.05.2000, vide Ex.A5. The contention of the defendant is that the non-payment of rent for the month of August, 1998 is due to clerical error and on receiving the notice from the plaintiff, the defendant realized the same and deposited the said amount immediately. The contention of the defendant is that the non-payment of rent for the month of August, 1998 is due to clerical error and on receiving the notice from the plaintiff, the defendant realized the same and deposited the said amount immediately. The suit is filed only for evicting the defendant, nowhere the plaintiff claimed for arrears of rent that means the defendant has deposited the rent till the date of filing the suit. b) The plaintiff contended that it had bonafide requirement as it was resolved by the Sikh Gurudwara Prabhandh Committee/plaintiff to open a diagnostic centre in the portion of suit property and also that it was facing hardship to manage the affairs of the Prabhandh committee including holding of meetings and day to day administration and thus, for its bonafide requirement it has asked the defendant to vacate the suit premises. In support of the said contention, it has filed Exs.A7 and A8 which are the minutes of resolution of the committee expressing the said decision of opening diagnostic centre. c) In support of his case, he got examined PW2 also and the evidence of PW2 shows that PW2 and his wife are the co-owners of mulgie bearing unit No.102 in premises No.9-1-127/4 on the ground floor of Amsri Classic admeasuring 2,900 Sft, situated at S.D.Road, Secunderabad and that they have jointly leased out the property to Dr.D.Kavita Reddy and Krishna Reddy under a lease deed dated 09.02.2004 on a monthly rent of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- towards hire charges for fixtures, fittings, furniture and other amenities and that the said lease is for a period of nine years and that the tenants have deposited Rs.7,00,000/- on free of interest towards advance rent and it is also agreed that after every two years, the enhancement will be 5% on the existing rent. Thus, the rate of rent to the said premises is @Rs.20/- per sft and it is elicited through him that the suit schedule property is in the adjacent building of the said premises. Thus, his evidence is that the suit schedule premises also can fetch more than Rs.25/- per sft and PW2 has also filed bank statement under which the rent for the months April to July was encashed. Nothing material could be elicited in the cross examination of PWs 1 and 2 to discredit their evidence. Thus, his evidence is that the suit schedule premises also can fetch more than Rs.25/- per sft and PW2 has also filed bank statement under which the rent for the months April to July was encashed. Nothing material could be elicited in the cross examination of PWs 1 and 2 to discredit their evidence. The defendant, on the other hand, has filed Exs.B1 to B8 in support of its case and admittedly, there is no lease deed between the plaintiff and the defendant. Exs.B1 to B8 are the letters addressed between the parties and the legal notices issued. It is elicited from the said exhibits that there was no registered lease deed executed between the parties. d) Admittedly, the rent was Rs.25,100/- per month, but whereas the plaintiff herein claims damages to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. PW2 supported the case of plaintiff by deposing with regard to the rent that is paid for his premises. However, though the adjacent premises is let out on a higher rent, the plaintiff cannot go beyond what is agreed upon between himself and his tenant. DW1 during his cross examination has admitted that the property would fetch a rent of Rs.20/- to 25/- per sft and that after vacating the suit premises, the defendant bank has occupied another premises in the year 2005, which is at a distance of 200 yards from the suit schedule property and is paying a rent of Rs.30/- per sft for the ground and first floor. Thus, the claim of the plaintiff @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month towards damages is without any basis and beyond the scope of rent agreed upon by the defendant. e) Thus, on an overall perusal of the evidence, it is held that the damages of Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of termination of tenancy i.e. 02.07.2000 till the defendant has vacated the premises i.e. 05.09.2005 is opined to be justified, in the present case and the same is awarded by the trial Court. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 13. POINT NO.2: In view of the findings arrived at point No.1, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court do not need any interference and the same are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 13. POINT NO.2: In view of the findings arrived at point No.1, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court do not need any interference and the same are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. POINT NO.3: In the result, the both the appeals are dismissed upholding the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2007 passed in O.S.No.60 of 2001 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.