An order of remand which conclusively determines the rights of the parties is a decree within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and is appealable as a decree.

( 1 ) THE present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises out of a suit for eviction instituted by the plaintiff, appellant against the defendant respondent. The suit was filed on 10th March, 1950 during the continuance of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948. The plaintiff asked for eviction on the ground that the defendant's interest in the disputed premises had been ipso facto determined under Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the said Rent Act of 1948. The Rent Control Act of 1950, that is to say, the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 came into force during the pendency of the suit.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff not only claimed recovery of possession; he also claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month from July to September 1949 and mesne profits at that rate from October 1949.

( 3 ) THE only point in controversy at the trial was whether the defendant paid rent for July and August 1949. Admittedly the defendant did not pay or deposit any rent for September, 1949 and subsequent months till 2nd November, 1951 when the defendant deposited arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month from September 1949 to August 1951 as per order No. 21 dated 21. 9. 51 passed on the plaintiff's application under Section 14 (4) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1950. That order was passed without prejudice to the contention of the parties as to whether the rent for July and August, 1949 had been paid. On the evidence on record the learned Munsif of the trial court found that the defendant did not pay rent for July and August, 1949. The next controversy was whether the defendant was hit by the proviso to Section 14 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950. At the time of the argument the learned Advocate for the defendant frankly conceded that the defendant did not deposit rent for September 1951 and subsequent months although by Order No. 21 dated 21. 9. 51 he was directed to deposit rent by the 15th day of the next following month. The learned Munsif decided the controversy against the defendant. The relevant portion from his judgment is quoted below:"so, in view of Section 14 (4) West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act defence against ejectment is deemed to have been struck out. In any view. I find that the defendant is not entitled to protection against eviction and is hit by the proviso to Section 14 (3) West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act and the plaintiff is entitled to get khas possession of the property in suit. "

( 4 ) ISSUE No. 2 in the suit was as follows; "was any notice to quit served upon the defendant? Is the notice legal, valid and sufficient?" the finding of the learned Munsif on this issue was as follows:"this issue was not pressed at the time of trial. As the plaintiff claims ejectment on the ground of ipso facto determination of tenancy under Section 12 (3) West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948 and in view of the case, no ejectment notice is necessary. "

( 5 ) THE final order passed by the learned Munsif on 31st March, 1952 was to the following effect:"ordered that the suit be decreed on contest with cost. The defendant do vacate the property in suit within one month from date. . . . . . The plaintiff do get from the defendant rent at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month for July and August, 1949. The plaintiff will be entitled to get mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month from September 1951 till he gets khas possession of the property. . . . . . . on payment of proper court fees. . . . . "

( 6 ) THE defendant preferred an appeal against the decision of the learned Munsif and the appeal was heard by Sri S. Sen Gupta, Subordinate Judge and it was registered as Title Appeal No. 132 of 1952 of the 2nd Additional Court of the Subordinate Judge, Howrah. The only point for determination before Sri Sen Gupta was whether the defendant was entitled to protection under Section 14 (1) of the West Bengal