ANIL KUMAR JAIN Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellants/landlords challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.3.1997 whereby the suit for possession and mesne profits of the appellants against the respondent bank was dismissed.

(2.) I may note that the respondent has, during the pendency of the present appeal, vacated the suit premises on 30.10.2002 and, therefore, there does not remain any issue with regard to the decree for possession. I may only note that the counsel for the appellants states that the premises were in fact vacated on 31.10.2002.

(3.) IN accordance with the aforesaid findings, it is quite clear that mesne profits were proved and were to be decreed, however, the suit itself was dismissed on account of tenancy not having been validly terminated and thus no mesne profits have been granted.