Possession protected by law cannot be deemed wrongful, and mesne profits can only be recovered post-legal entitlement.

1. These two cross appeals arise out of a suit filed for recovery of mesne profits. They can be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Second Appeal No. 5166 of 1961 has been filed by the defendants to the suit and the other Second Appeal No. 5343 of 1961 has been filed by the plaintiff to the suit.

3. The plaintiff brought a suit in the court of the Civil Judge. Saharanpur, for recovery of mesne profits. The suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and subject - matter, was valued approximately at Rs. 5,000 and odd. It was prayed that if on determination the court found a larger sum payable as mesne profits the same be decreed on the condition of payment of requisite court - fee.

4. Briefly stated the admitted facts are as follows:
The defendants under a lease executed by the plaintiff took a flour mill together with appurtenance for a period of one year on yearly rent of Rs. 20,000. The lease expired on July, 1942. The defendant did not get the lease renewed for another year as was stipulated in the lease - deed, did not deliver possession and continued to occupy and operate the flour mill. The plaintiff then filed suit No. 42 of 1942 for ejectment of the defendant. This suit was decreed on 19-2-1945. An appeal by the defendant was ultimately dismissed by the High Court on 23-11-1954. Meanwhile the plaintiff made efforts to execute the decree against the defendants and made repeated applications for execution during the years 1945 and 1946, but on the objection of the defendant, the execution applications were dismissed, on the ground firstly, under the order issued by the District Magistrate under the Defence of India Rules the eviction of tenants was not permitted and then under the Ordinance issued by the Governor and finally under the U. P. Act III of 1947. From the dismissal of the last application for execution the plaintiff preferred an Execution First Appeal. This Execution Appeal was also heard by the same Bench which heard the appeal from the original decree of ejectment and was decided on the same date i.e. 23-11-1954. The Execution Appeal was allowed. By that time the protection afforded by law had ceased due to amendment in the definition of accommodation' by U. P. Act XVII of 1954, and the mill in question with its appurtenance fell outside the definition of 'accommodation' under U. P. Act III of 1947. However the High Court, on mutual agreement between the parties, allowed four months' further time to the defendants for delivering possession to the plaintiff. It appears despite the decision of this Court allowing the execution to proceed, and despite further time having been granted the defendants did not deliver possession till some time in the year 1956. Meanwhile, the plaintiff filed suits for recovery of mesne profits. The suit giving rise to this appeal is one of such suits. In the instant suit mesne profits have been claimed for a period commencing from 1-5-1952 and ending with 30-4-1955. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had been earning profits end they were liable to disgorge such profits earned, having been in wrongful possession as trespasser throughout the suit period. It was further alleged that the defendants had all the accounts with them and the court if it thought fit could make an inquiry and then pass a decree. The defendants pleaded that so long as the law protected them and permitted them to remain in possession as the tenants, they would not be and could not in law be trespassers in wrongful possession. Hence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any mesne profits. It