The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession of the appellant was wrongful from 1986, and the respondents were entitled to mesne profits for the entire period, including the time when the special officer was in possession.

JUDGMENT

I. P. Mukerji, J. - During the pendency of the suit, at the instance of the respondents/plaintiffs an order was passed by the learned interlocutory judge appointing a Special Officer to take physical possession of the demised premises. It appears that on 21st October, 1993, the Special Officer proceeded to take possession at 4 p.m. He was able to take it by 6 p.m. on that day as recorded in the minutes of the meeting held by him. The appellant's representative was not to be found in the property. It was locked. a watchman opened the door. Thereafter possession was taken. Mr. Saha, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the appellant continued to keep their articles in the premises and took no step whatsoever to get the Special Officer discharged. From 21st October, 1993 till 24th april, 2014 physical possession was retained by him. On 25th april, 2014 the respondents obtained its possession, from the special officer after the special leave petition against the division bench judgement of our court dated 5th December, 2013, affirming the decree of the trial court dated 15th July, 2013 directing eviction of the appellant was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court.

2. This appeal was argued only on one short point.

3. Whether the respondents are entitled to mesne profit for the period of 21st October, 1993 till 24th april, 2014 when the property was in the actual physical possession of a Special Officer appointed by this court?

4. The learned single judge by his impugned judgment and order dated 11th august, 2014 held that the respondents were so entitled to, as determined by the Special referee appointed by this court, in his report signed on 16th June, 2014.

5. The appellant appeals to this court from this judgment and order.

6. Now, the facts need to be told in some detail.

7. In 1989, a suit was filed by the respondents against the appellant claiming a decree for possession of 2886 sq ft. of the mezzanine floor along with the parking space in the courtyard of anuj Chambers situated at 24, Park Street, Kolkata. The ground for eviction of the appellant was trespass. Standard Pharmceutical Ltd. was a monthly tenant under the respondents. This company in 1983 merged with the appellant and stood dissolved. The respondents alleged wrongful transfer by the Company to the appellant and accused the appellant of trespass into the premises. They claimed their eviction and mesne profits from May 1986.

8. The appellant filed their written statement, documents were discovered and the suit went to trial. It was tried before Mr. Justice Soumen Sen. On 15th July, 2013 it was decreed by his lordship.

9. The judgment and decree held that the appellant was liable to be evicted from the suit premises. a decree followed for recovery of its khas possession. The finding in the last paragraph of the judgment is most crucial and of paramount importance. It is in the following terms:-

'Since the defendants are in wrongful occupation of the suit premises since 1986, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to mesne profits from May 1986 till recovery of possession and Mr. Samrat Sen, a member of the bar, is appointed as special officer to compute the mesne profits and submit the report before this Court within a period of eight weeks from date of communication of this order.

Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel for * defendants, prayed for stay of operation of the judgment and decree. The same is considered and rejected.'

10. First, the learned trial judge held that the appellant was in wrongful possession of the suit premises since 1986. Secondly, it was held that the respondents were entitled to mesne profit from May, 1986 till recovery of possession. a member of the bar was appointed as a Special Referee to compute the mesne profits in terms of this judgment.

11. The appellant appealed from this judgment and decree before a division bench of this court. On a perusal of the judgment and decree dated 5th December, 2013 passed on appeal it doe