The defendant was not entitled to the benefits of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, after the expiry of the lease, and damages for use and occupation were assessed based on the defendant's net profits from the building.

( 1 ) THESE appeals brought on behalf of the defendant are, directed against the judgment and decrees in OS. Nos. 6 and 7 of 1971 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Civil Stn. , Bangalore, by which the suits of the plaintiffs (respondents herein) for damages for use and occupation, were decreed at Rs. 11,000 per annum. The parties to both appeals are common. In order to appreciate the grounds urged in the appeals, the facts which are not in dispute may be stated in brief.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs are the owners of a non-residential building situated in chickpet, Bangalore City. The said building was leased to the defendant by the plaintiffs, for a term of ten years with effect from 1-10-1954, under the registered lease deed dt. 20-10-1954. The defendant took the building on lease with the object of carrying on the, business of a lodging house. Under the agreement between the parties, the rent was fixed at Rs. 580 per month after the plaintiffs put up a second floor for the building and gave possession of the same to the defendant.

( 3 ) THE term of the lease as per the registered lease deed expired on 30-9- 1964. The plaintiffs, did not assent to the lessee's continuance in possession of the building after 1-10-1964. The defendant having failed to surrender possession of the building, the plaintiffs instituted OS. No. 1648 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the First Munsiff, Bangalore, for possession; no mesne profits were claimed in the said suit. That suit was contested by the defendant mainly on the ground that he was protected from eviction under the provisions of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), so long as he paid the agreed rent. That contention, however, was rejected and the plaintiffs' suit for possession was decreed as prayed for. That decree was ultimately affirmed by this Court and the decree has become final. In execution of the decree, the plaintiffs took delivery of possession of their building from the defendant on 16-7-1966, the plaintiffs instituted OS. No. 119 of 1966 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Bangalore City, for damages for wrongful use and occupation of the aforesaid building far the period from 1-10-1964 to 30-6-1966 at the rate of Rs. 1,250 p. m. On 31-7-1969, they instituted OS. No. 171 of 1969 on the file of the Court of tho Civil Judge, Bangalore, for recovery of damages for wrongful use and occupation, for the period from 1-7-1966 to 31-7-1969, at Rs. 2,175 a month. The said two suits were subsequently transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge, Civil Stn. , Bangalore, where they were re-numbered as OS. Nos 6 and 7 of 1971. They were clubbed and tried together and disposed of by a common judgment.

( 4 ) THE contention urged by the defendant before the Court below was that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim damages for use and occupation at a rate in excess of the 'fair rent' chargeable under the Act and that, in any event the amounts claimed are excessive. The learned Civil Judge, rejecting the first contention, held that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim damages for use and occupation. With regard to the quantum of damages, he assessed the same at Rs. 11,000 p. a. on the basis of the net profits shown by the defendant in his income-tax returns filed for the assessment year 1965-66. Before us, Sri B. P. Holla, learned Counsel for the appellant, urged that the defendant is liable to pay only aj Rs. 580 a, month which was the agreed rent under the agreement of lease. His argument was that in view of the definition of the word 'tenant' in S. 3 (r) of the Act, the defendant who continued in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, is a tenant under the Act. , and therefore, entitled to the benefits conferred by the Act; and that S. 18 (2) (a) of the Act prohibits the owner of a building to receive any sum or consideration in addition to the agreed rent. According to learned Counsel, the defendant, no