JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of a suit under sec. 25 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for ejectment of the Defendants, on the ground that the Defendants who were occupancy raiyats had made the land unfit for the purposes of the tenancy by making excavations thereon, after service of notice under sec. 155 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Court of first instance gave a decree for ejectment and also awarded Rs. 100 for compensation. On appeal the amount of compensation was reduced to Rs. 50. The Defendants have appealed to this Court and two contentions have been raised on their behalf. The first is that there cannot be a decree for compensation in addition to a decree for ejectment and secondly that no date having been fixed by the decree of the lower Appellate Court, the decree is bad in law. With regard to the first contention, it is to be observed that sec. 25 of the Bengal Tenancy Act lays down that an occupancy raiyat shall not be ejected by his landlord from his holding except in execution of a decree for ejectment passed on the ground that he has used the land comprised in his holding in a manner which renders it unfit for the purposes of the tenancy. Sec. 155 lays down the procedure to be observed before a suit for ejectment can be brought and provides that a notice must be served upon the tenant specifying the particular misuse and, where the misuse is capable of remedy, requiring the tenant to remedy the same, and in any case to pay reasonable compensation for the misnse and that no suit shall he entertained until he has served a notice, and the tenant has failed to comply within a reasonable time with that request. There is no question that such a notice was served. Sub-sec. (2) of that section lays down that a decree passed in favour of a landlord in such a suit shall declare the amount of compensation which would reasonably be payable to the Plaintiff for the misuse and whether the misuse is capable of remedy and shall fix a period during which it shall be open to the Defendant to pay that amount to the Plaintiff and, where the misuse is declared to be capable of remedy, to remedy the same. Sub-sec. Sub-sec. (3) gives the Court power to extend the period fixed by it under sub-sec. (2), and sub-sec. (4) lays down that if the Defendant within the period or extended period (as the case may be) fixed by the Court under this section, pays the compensation mentioned in the decree and, where the misuse is declared by the Court to be capable of remedy, remedies the misuse to the satisfaction of the Court, the decree shall not be executed. It is clear, therefore, that under sec. 155 the decree must declare a reasonable amount of compensation payable to the Plaintiff and fix a period during which it shall be open to the Defendant to pay that amount to the Plaintiff. The decree must, whore in the opinion of the Court the misuse is capably of remedy, similarly fix a period for remedying the same. If there is a compliance with both these orders, the decree cannot be executed. It follows, therefore, that if there is non-compliance with both or either of them, the decree is to be executed. The question, however, is what is the decree to be executed. We think the decree to be executed is a decree for ejectment not a decree for compensation, because ejectment is to follow in the event of non-compliance with the order of the Court directing payment of compensation and remedying of the misuse. If the interpretation which the learned Pleader for the Respondent sought to place upon the section is correct, then it follows that there can be not only a decree for compensation in addition to the decree for ejectment, but also a decree for remedying the misuse. The decree as stated above is to direct two things to be done, namely, payment of compensation and remedying of the misuse, and if the Plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for compensation in addition to a decree for ejectment, we do not see any reason why the Plaintiff should not also get a decree for remedying the misuse. The fact is that the decree for ejectment is a penalty for the non-payment of compensation and non-compliance with the order for remedying the misuse. In other words, them are two alternatives, either a compliance with the orders or ejectment We are accordingly of opinion that the decree of the lower Appellate Court so far as if directs payment of Rs. In other words, them are two alternatives, either a compliance with the orders or ejectment We are accordingly of opinion that the decree of the lower Appellate Court so far as if directs payment of Rs. 50 as compensation to the Plaintiffs should be set aside. 2. The next question is whether the decree is bad by reason of its not having fixed a date for ejectment. Now there is no doubt that it would have been better, if the Court had fixed a date in the judgment, and we think that the Court in such cases should fix a date in the appellate judgment where there is an appeal. In the present case, however, it appears that the decree of the first Court declared that the Defendants were to be ejected in the event of the non-compliance with the orders within one mouth from the "date of the decree." Now there having been an appeal, the decree of the Appellate Court was the decree to be executed. In the case of Noor Ali Chowdhury v. Koni Meah I. L. R. 13 Cal. 13 (1886), it was held that the Appellate decree must be presumed to Incorporata the terms of the original decree and is the only decree to be executed. That was a case under sec. 52 of Act VIII of 1869 (corresponding to sec. 66 of the present Bengal Tenancy Act) and there is a period of 15 days fixed by the section itself. But we think the principle may apply to the facts of the present case. Then the decree for ejectment in the present case was executed more than 30 days after the decree of the Appellate Court, and no attempt was made by the Defendants to have the execution of the decree stayed. It is to be observed that the Court has power under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 155 to extend the time fixed by if, and no application was made for extension of the time. The decree for ejectment as stated above was executed after the expiry of 30 days from the date of the decree of the Appellate Court, and we are told that the Plaintiffs have taken possession of the property. (3) of sec. 155 to extend the time fixed by if, and no application was made for extension of the time. The decree for ejectment as stated above was executed after the expiry of 30 days from the date of the decree of the Appellate Court, and we are told that the Plaintiffs have taken possession of the property. We do not see how it is possible for the Defendants to remedy the misuse after the Plaintiffs have taken possession of the property, and possibly have brought the land back to its original condition. Under these circumstances, we think that we ought not to interfere with the decree. 3. The result is that the decree of the lower Appellate Court in so far as it awards Rs. 50 as compensation to the Plaintiffs will be set aside. In all other respects, the decree of the lower Appellate Court is confirmed and this appeal dismissed. Each party will bear its own costs in this appeal.