K.S. Gupta, J.

1. Plaintiffs have filed I.A. 498/97 under Section 151, CPC alleging that they filed suit in 1990 for ejectment of the defendant from flat No. 14E, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, admeasuring about 930 sq. ft. and also for recovery of mesne profit/damages on the ground of lease of the flat having expired by efflux of time on February 25,1989. Defendant has contested the suit by filing written statement and the following issues have been framed:

1. Whether the tenancy of the defendant has come to an end on 25th of February, 1989 on account of efflux of time

2. Whether the tenancy of defendant is properly terminated

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get possession of suit property

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get Rs. 4,10,130 towards past mesne profits till the date of the suit

5. If decree of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiffs, at what rate the plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits from the date of institution of the suit till delivery of the possession

6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get interest @ 18% on amount found due to him

7. What order and decree

2. In similar leases with the defendant for flat Nos. 9-B and 14-D in the same building, decrees for ejectment and damages/mesne profits have been passed on the same defence as taken in this suit and the appeals taken by the defendant uptil the Supreme Court have been dismissed. Judgment for aforesaid flat No. 9-B is reported in A1R 1994 Delhi 255. It is further alleged that the defendant has no defence and it is unnecessary contesting the suit. Damages have already been assessed at Rs. 25 per sq. ft. per month from February 26, 1989 till February 25, 1992 and at the rate of Rs. 28.75P. per sq. ft. per month from February 26, 1992 till May 31,1995 and at the rate of Rs. 60 per sq. ft. per month from June 1, 1995 onwards. Current market rate of rent is about Rs. 125 to Rs. 130 per sq. ft. per month in Connaught Place area. It is prayed that the suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

3. In reply the defendant has alleged that the issues framed cannot be decided without recording evidence and the dates of trial have already been fixed by the Court. Damages / mesne profits @ 25 per sq. ft. per month in the decision reported in AIR 1994 Delhi 255 were determined after the recording of the evidence of the parties. Order passed in respect of flat No. 14D was basically a consent order. It is emphatically denied that the defendant has no defence and is unnecessarily contesting the suit, as alleged. It is further denied that the damages have already been assessed @ 25 per sq. ft. per month from February 26, 1989 till February 25, 1992; @ Rs. 28.75P. per sq. ft. per month from February 26, 1992 to May 31, 1995 and @Rs. 60 per sq. ft. per month from June 1, 1995 onwards. It is further denied that the present market rate of rent is about Rs. 125 to Rs. 130 per sq. ft. per month in Connaught Place area, as alleged.

4. I have heard the parties Counsel and have also gone through the decisions in Mrs. (Dr.) P.S. Bedi v. Project & Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., AIR 1994 Delhi 255; State Bank of Patiala v. Chandermohan, 1996 RLR 404 [LQ/DelHC/1996/534] , relied on behalf of the plaintiffs and Punjab National Bank & Anr. v. S. Kartar Singh, 66(1997) DLT 857 [LQ/DelHC/1996/810] , relied on behalf of the defendant.

5. Decision in Kartar Singhs case (supra) running into only two short paras, which is relevant, reads thus:

1. We find that the judgment and decree which has been passed by the Court below is not justifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as issues in the matter have been framed and the plaintiff had completed the evidence which was to be led. It is at this stage that an application was filed under Order XII, Rule 6, CPC for; decreeing the suit on the basis of the alleged admissions in the written statement.

2. Where evidence has started after parties are at issue and issues framed by the Court, it is necessary to go through the entire trial before pronouncing the judgment. The judgment and decree of the Court below is set aside and the matter is remanded for purposes of trial to the Court below. The trial shall commence from the stage where the matter was at the time of the passing of impugned judgment and the decree on the basis of an application under Order XII, Rule 6, CPC.

As is evident from the issues framed in the case besides recovery of possession of aforesaid flat No. 14-E, plaintiffs further claim 1nesne profits upto the date of the filing of the suit; pendente lite and future mesne profits at the enhanced rate and interest @ 18% on the amount found due to them. Without recording evidence of the parties at least latter reliefs cannot be granted to the plaintiffs. Case is already fixed for trial. Taking note of the ratio in the decision in Kartar Singhs case (supra), I feel that it is not a fit case for passing decree as claimed by the plaintiffs at this juncture. Decisions referred to above relied on behalf of the plaintiffs pertain to the merits of the case and are of not much help on the controversy at hand.

6. Dismissed.