N. C. MUKHERJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against judgment and decree dated 31st of May 1974 passed by Sri S. K. Chatterjee, Additional District Judge, 10th Court, Alipore, in Title Appeal No. 134 of 1973 affirming those of Sri H. Banerjee, Munsif, 3rd Court, Alipore, passed in Title Suit No. 209 of 1966 on 31st of May 1972.

( 2 ) THE respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and for damages against the appellant on the ground that licence granted to the defendant in respect of the suit land had been revoked. The defendant contested the suit claiming to be a tenant in respect of the suit land being a part of 44, S. R. Das Road and measuring about 7 cottas. The suit was decreed and the decree was confirmed by the appellate court A second appeal was filed by the defendant being S. A. 9 of 1970. This Court agreed with the concurrent findings of the courts below that the defendant was a licensee and his licence had been validly terminated. As regards damages for the unauthorised occupation of the suit land this Court found that there was no sufficient material on record to decide whether the sum of Rs. 10/- per diem as decreed by the courts below was a reasonable amount of compensation or not As such this question was left open. His Lordship agreed with the courts below that the defendant was liable to pay damages but the determination of the rate of damages payable by the defendant was relegated to the proceeding under Order 20. Rule 12 of the Civil P. C. This Court directed : "the trial court while deciding the amount of damages which the plaintiff may be entitled to recover will also record finding as regards the rate of damages payable by the defendant on the evidence already on record and on further evidence if adduced by the parties. I accordingly dismiss this appeal and affirm the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court subject to the modification that the plaintiff would get a decree for damages since 15th May 1966 till he recovers possession of the suit land but the rate of damages and the quantum of the same would be decided by the trial court in the subsequent proceeding on payment of proper court-fees". After remand the trial court held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 10/- per diem from 15-5-1966 till recovery of possession. It was also ordered that the plaintiff would get mesne profits at the aforesaid rate from 1-6-1972 till the recovery of possession on payment of additional court-fees. The order was passed by the learned Munsif on 31-5-1972. The learned appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court and the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff with regard to costs was allowed. Being aggrieved, the defendant has come up to this Court.

( 3 ) MR. Rabindranath Mitter, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, in the first place, submits that the court below overlooked the provisions of Order 20, Rule 12 and were wrong in allowing the plaintiff mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit till the recovery of possession. Order 20. Rule 12 of the Code reads as follows :--" (1) Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or mesne profits, the Court may pass a decree- (a) for the possession of the property; (b) for the rent or mesne profits which have accrued on the property during a period prior to the institution of the suit or directing an inquiry as to such rent or mesne profits; (c) directing an inquiry as to rent or mesne profits from the institution of the suit until- (i) the delivery of possession to the decree-holder, (ii) the relinquishment of possession by the judgment-debtor with notice to the decree-holder through the Court, or (iii) the expiration of three years from the date of the decree, whichever event first occurs. (2) Where an inquiry is directed under Clause (b) or Clause (c), a final decree in respect of the rent or mesne profits shall be p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document