1. This is landlord's second appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.9-A/1996.

2. Facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:

i. Appellant/plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and for damages @ Rs.50/- per day against the tenants.

ii. The trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 2.4.1996, decreed the suit granting decree of eviction and Rs.3,000/- as arrears of rent from 01.07.1994 till filing of the suit with interest against respondents No.2 & 3 (since deceased).

iii. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the second part of the decree, the appellant preferred first appeal. The first appellate Court modified the decree to some extent and granted decree of Rs.3,000/- against respondent No.1.

iv. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by not awarding decree of arrears of rent/damages from the date of institution of the suit till delivery of vacant possession by respondent, the instant second appeal has been filed by the landlord.

3. This Court, vide order dated 26.6.2013, admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in not awarding the mesne profit to the appellant till the vacation of accommodation from respondent No.1?"

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of both the Courts below including judgment and decree impugned.

5. Section 2 (i) of the M.P./C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961') reads as under:

"2(i) "tenant" means a person by whom or in whose account or behalf the rent of any accommodation is, or, but for a contract express or implied, would be payable for any accommodation and includes any person occupying the accommodation as a sub-tenant and also, any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy whether before or after the commencement of this Act: but shall not include any person against whom any order or decree for eviction has been made."

6. On a plain reading of the definition aforesaid, it is clear that a tenant even after the termination of his contractual tenancy does not become an unauthorized occupant of the accommodation but remains a tenant, so long as eviction decree is passed against him and till then no damages (mesne profits) can be granted in lieu of rent.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705, has held in para-17 of its judgment as under:

"17. In the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the definition of a "tenant" is contained in clause (1) of Section 2. Tenant includes "any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy" [Section 2(1)(ii)] and does not include "any person against whom an order or decree for eviction has been made" [Section 2(1)(A)]. This definition is identical with the definition of tenant dealt with by this Court in Chander Kali Bai case. The respondent tenant herein having suffered an order for eviction on 19-3-2001, his tenancy would be deemed to have come to an end with effect from that date and he shall become an unauthorised occupant. It would not make any difference if the order of eviction has been put in issue in appeal or revision and is confirmed by the superior forum at a latter date. The date of termination of tenancy would not be postponed by reference to the doctrine of merger.

8. In the instant case, the eviction decree has been passed by the trial Court on 02.04.1996. Therefore, in the light of dictum of Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the tenant's possession would become wrongful from the date of decree passed by the trial Court.

9. Further, the house was let out by the plaintiff/appellant on a monthly rent of Rs.1000/-. The Supreme Court, in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Limited, (2005) 1 SCC 705 (supra) has further observed in para 20:

"20. In the case at hand, it has