( 1. ) ON admitted facts, defendant/appellant has raised a short, but important question of law in this second appeal. Decrees passed by two Courts below, it is contended, suffer jurisdictional incompetence and must be set aside on that account.

( 2. ) IN the opening paragraph of its judgment, the lower appellate Court has focussed on the crux of the controversy. The four-fold entitlement of the plaintiffs accepted by the trial Court in passing decree in that regard is set out. In title suit No. 78/81 which plaintiffs had instituted for defendants eviction from the suit-house, a preliminary decree was passed on 9-4-1965 directing, inter alia, that defendant should hand over vacant possession of the suit house to the plaintiffs latest by 8-7-1965 and that on possession being so delivered to the plaintiffs, they would be entitled to pray for mesne profits on paying court-fees in that regard and obtain decree for that on enquiry into their claim in that regard being completed. 2-A. Admittedly, the defendant delivered possession of the suit house within the period allowed and it is also admitted that rent payable for the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month was also deposited by the defendant upto 5-8-1986 and that was withdrawn by the plaintiffs. The claim of the plaintiffs for mesne profits laid at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month for the period between 31-8-1960 and 4-8-1965 was, however, accepted by the trial Court and that decision, the lower appellate Court confirmed by the impugned judgment and decree. In doing so, the courts evidently accepted plaintiffs claim that defendants tenancy was determined on 31-8-1960 in terms of notice under section 106, Transfer of Property Act, for short, the T. P. Act served on the defendant by the plaintiffs in that regard.

( 3. ) WHAT appears clear to us is that the courts below eiled to appreciate the correct legal postition in the context of M. P. Accommodation Act, 1961 for short, the "rent Control Act" or the "act". The suit house being situate within municipal limits of Guna town, the provisions thereof ought to prevail against those of the T. P. Act. True, the suit was filed on 29-9-1961 and the tenancy was created even prior to that. But that would not, for reasons to follow, disentitle the defendant to claim protection of the Rent Control Act to nonsuit the plaintiffs as regards their claim for mesne profits.

( 4. ) IN the impugned judgment, reference is made to the provisions of Order XX, Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure, but that provision has to be read along with section 2 (12), Civil Procedure Code which is extracted:

" "mesne profits" of property means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually, received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits, but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession".

( 5. ) ACCORDING to Order XX, Ruie 12, in a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property, the Court may pass a decree "for the mesne profits or directing an inquiry as to such mesne profits and the inquiry may relate to the period commencing from the institution of the suit until the delivery of possession of the suit property to the decree-holder. However, the question is, how and to what extent the jurisdiction of the court trying plaintiffs suit was impaired by the impact of the provisions of the Rent Control Act. This question has dual aspects which may be analysed.

( 6. ) BOTH aspects of the question have to be treated, however, with reference to the crucial question of inter-action between the provisions of the T. P. Act and the Rent Control Act. Seven learned Judges of the Summit Court in Dhanapal Chettiars case, AIR 1979 SC 1745, speaking through N. L. Untwalia, J. surveyed different Rent Control Acts enacted in the country and considered the impact thereof on the provisions of the T. . Act. Indeed, provisions of sections