JUDGMENT -The short question involved in this appeal is regarding the mode of computing mesne profits and the amount of mesne profits which would eventually follow. 2. The house in dispute was constructed more than 40 years before 1957. A block of four rooms from that house was taken on a rent of Rs. 21.10:6 per month by the defendant from the former owner in the year 1939. The plaintiff -respondent purchased this entire building inclusive of the block in possession of the defendant on the 2nd of February 1954. After obtaining permission from the Rent Control Officer, the plaintiff -respondent served the defendant with a notice terminating his tenancy and filed his suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profits in the year 1955. This suit was eventually decreed on the 12th of December 1957 and it was ordered under Order 20, rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure that mesne profits from 1.8.1955 onwards be determined. The defendant. appellant actually vacated possession of the block in suit on 8 -9 -1958. Upon an application by the plaintiff -decree -holder, the trial Court fixed the mesne profits of the said block for the period from 1 -8 -1955 to 8 -9 -1958 at Rs. 75 per month. Both the parties appealed to the District Court. The appeal by the defendant was dismissed and the amount of mesne profits was raised from. 75 per month to Rs. 90 per month in the plaintiff’s. appeal. That order of the District Judge is being challenged in this court. 3. Mr. A. S. Bobde, Advocate for the appellant, contended that in accordance with the definition of mesne profits in section 2 (12), code of civil Procedure, the plaintiff would only be entitled to get those profits which the defendant, who was held to be in wrongful possession, actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received there from, together with permissible interest thereon. According to him, what the plaintiff -landlord might have earned by re -letting the house or what the plaintiff -landlord had lost would not be the proper or correct criterion for deciding the question of Mesne profits. According to him, what the plaintiff -landlord might have earned by re -letting the house or what the plaintiff -landlord had lost would not be the proper or correct criterion for deciding the question of Mesne profits. He submitted that here was a case where the defendant was not show to have made any profit by letting out or handing over the suit premises to anyone -and when it was only a question of deciding what he might have received only criterion should be the rent of Rs. 21 -10 -6 which he was liable to pay when he was a tenant. Mr. Bobde further submitted that at the most, the fair rent could have been treated as equivalent to the mesne profits, that fair rent being the original rent together with an increase of 121/2 percent in accordance with clause 6 (1) of the Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order,1949. According to him, both the Courts had misdirected themselves by proceeding to find out what the landlord had lost or might have earned by letting the house. He also urged that the Courts below had lost sight of the fact that, the landlord could have got anything more than the fair rent to be determined, according to clauaes 4 to 6 of the Rent Control Order and in that view, they were in error admitting evidence of what offers were made to the plaintiff or what the plaintiff could have got by reletting the house independently qf the rent Control Order. He relied on the decision of Mr. Justice Badkas in Firat Appeal No. 39 of 1955 decided on 1 -4 -1959, as also on Hirabai V. Jiwanlal (I), ,Fateh Chand V.Bal kishan Dass(2)and Ranga Rao V. K. Ramdass (3), in support of his submissions. 4. Mr. D. B. Padhye, Advocate for the plaintiff -decree -holder supported the impugned order. He also agreed that the test to be determined was, ,not what the plaintiff would have got or what the plaintiff he4 lost by ,not being able to get possession, but what the user of, the property meant to the, defendant who was in wrongful possession. According to him, the submission of Mr.Bobde that the mesne profits could not be in excess of the rent being paid by the defendant or the standard rent that could have been fixed, by the rent control Officer was entirely incorrect. According to him, the submission of Mr.Bobde that the mesne profits could not be in excess of the rent being paid by the defendant or the standard rent that could have been fixed, by the rent control Officer was entirely incorrect. The defendant was no longer tenant and the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. The defendant could not, therefore, claim the advantage of that relationship which had ceased to exist vis -a -vis the plaintiff. According to him, the Court, below were right in considering the reasonable rent. In his view the courts below had not determined the mesne profits on the basis of what the plantiff would have lost but that was done on the basis of the value of the user of the property to the defendant who was wrongfully retaining possession. He relied on Bhagwandas V. Mst. Koabai, (4) and Chiranjilal V. Kunwar Prasad (5)and also on the Supreme Court decision on which Mr. Bobde was relying. 5. In section 2 (12), Code of Civil Procedure, mesne profits are defined at 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. A plain reading of this definition would leave no manner of doubt that the test to be applied was not what the plaintiff -decre -holder had lost or would have earned by letting out or using the property himself, but what the person in wrongful possession namely, the defendant, had actually received or might with, ordinary diligence have received therefrom. Since both sides are agreed on this particular point., I do not think it necessary to quote any authorities in support thereof. It is common ground between the parties that the defendant -appellant has not let, out or handed over the block in dispute to anyone during the relevant period. Consequently, there is no question of finding out what the defendant actually received from this property during the period from 1 -8 -1955 to 8 -9 -1958. the only point to be considered would be what the defendant might with ordinary, diligence have received from that property as the basis for determining the, quantum of mesne profits. 6. According to Mr. Bobde, the rent of Rs. the only point to be considered would be what the defendant might with ordinary, diligence have received from that property as the basis for determining the, quantum of mesne profits. 6. According to Mr. Bobde, the rent of Rs. 21 -10 -6 which the defendant him been paying all along to the plaintiff should represent what he might with ordinary diligence have received from the property within the meaning of second 2 (12), Code of Civil Procedure. In First Appeal No. 39 of 1955 decided" on 4 -19 -1959,Mr. Justice Badkas purported to have taken the rent payable by the erstwhile tenant as the quantum of mesne profits. However, no reasons or grounds for that conclusion appear to have been mentioned in the judgment. A persual of the concluding paragraph in which this matter was dealt with shows that it was taken for granted on all hands that the rent payable by the erstwhile tenant was to be the test of the quantum of mesne profits. Therefore, that decision would not be of any avail in deciding the question under controversy. The decision in Hirabai V. Jivanlal (1), on which Mr. Bobde was relying had adopted the loss of rent to the landlord as the measure of the damages for wrongful occupation. With respect, I do not think that that would be a correct test in the context of the definition of mesne profits in section 2 (12). This view of the Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court would stand contradicted by the decision in P. Ranga Bao V. K. Ramdoss (2), on which Mr. Bobde himself was relying, The Division Bench of the Andhra High Court had pointed out in that decision that the criterion for calculation of mesne profits cannot be what the -person out of possession (plaintiff) might have got had he been on the land and mesne profits could only consist of what the person in wrongful possession of such property (defendant) actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received there from. The principle laid down in the Andhra ruling also is unquestionable. The only point is in what manner it is to be applied to the facts of the present case .. 7. The submission of Mr. The principle laid down in the Andhra ruling also is unquestionable. The only point is in what manner it is to be applied to the facts of the present case .. 7. The submission of Mr. Bobde that the amount of rent which could defendant -appellant had been paying or the amount of standard rent which could have been fixed under the Rent Control Order should be the measure of mesne profits is effectively answered by Bhagwandas V. Mst. Kokabai(3). The learned Chief Justice of the then Nagpur, High Court has pointed out in this decision that the Rent Control Order governs for the limited purpose of that Order, the relationship of landlord and tenant, but it has no re1evence to the question of what should be the measure of damages which a successful landlord should get for being kept out of his property. The learned Chief Justice then observed that after determination of the tenancy the position of the tenant -defendant is that of a mere trespasser and he cannot take advantage of the provisions of the Rent Control Order and claim that the rent he paid should be the measure of damages awardable to the landlord. It was finally pointed out in that decision that where the rent represents the fair value of the property, mesne profits may be assessed at the amount of the rent. But if the real value i. higher than the rent, then the mesne profits must be assessed at the higher value.Chiranjilal V. Kunwar Prasad (1), has also effectively answered the submission of Mr. Bobde that the rent payable by an erstwhile tenant should represent the quantum of mesne profits to be calculated for payment by him. 8. I would now consider the Supreme Court decision on fateh Chand V. Balkishan Dass (2), on which both sides were relying. The following observations, of their Lordships in the judgment -para 17, page 1413, Col. I, would be pertinent for the decision of this case: - "The plaintiff is undoubtedly entitled to mesne profits from the defendant and meane profit as defined in section 2 (12), Code of Civil Procedure, are profits which the person in wrongful possession of property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefore together with interest on such profits, but do not include profits due to improvements made by the Person in wrongful possession. The normal measure of mesne profits is, therefore, the value of the user on land to the person in wrongful posseession.’’ (Italics are mine) Both the sides are rightly relying on this decision as the last word on the question of the measure of damages. 9. As adumbrated, the trial Court received evidence of both parties .ad fixed the mesne profits at Rs. 75 which amount was increased to Rs. 90 per month by the District Court. According to Mr. Bobde, this fixation by the lower Courts violates the principle laid down by the Supreme Court; whereas according to Mr. Padhye, that fixation is unconnected with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court. Mr.Bobde was submitting that the fixtation by the Courts below not only violated the rule laid down by the Supreme court that the value of the user of the land to the person in wrongful possession is to be determined, but also violated the provisions of the Rent Conrol Order. He stressed that those provisions ought to be kept in view and all evidence which witnesses purported to say that the amount in excess of fair rent could have been availed of should have been ruled out as inadmissible or as illegal. M.r. Padhye, on the other hand, contended that the Courts below had fixed the quantum of mesne profits not as the equivalent of what the plaintiff had lost but as the money value of the user of the block to the defendant, who was in wrongful possession. Mr. Padhye submitted that the provisions of the rent Contrl Order were entirely irrelevant and had no bearing on this question. 10. It has not been made clear by Mr. Bobde how the Courts below had purported to determine what .the plaintiff had lost by being kept out of possession. A perusal of the orders would show that that was not the trend of the reasoning of the Courts below. It has to be remembered that the defendant was in possession of the suit block as a tenant paying a small rent of Re. 21 -10 -6 per month. A perusal of the orders would show that that was not the trend of the reasoning of the Courts below. It has to be remembered that the defendant was in possession of the suit block as a tenant paying a small rent of Re. 21 -10 -6 per month. So long as the relationship of landlord and tenant continue, it was not possible or permissible for the landlord to increase this rent or, at any rate, to increase it beyond what the Rent Control Officer may permit under the provisions of clauses 4 to 6 of the Rent Control Order. The defendant was, no doubt, in, a. privileged position so long as he continued to be a tenant, but on the termination of the tenancy, that relationship had come to an end and he bad ceased to hold that privileged position of a tenant, and his possession was a rank trespasser after the termination of the tenancy. The argument of Mr.Bobde that the mesne profits should be calculated on the basis of the rent payable under the Rent Control Order, meant that the defendant who had ceased to bold the privileged position of a tenant, and was in possession 8 a rank trespasser, was still entitled to the benefits of the privileged position of a tenant for all the period during which he successfully evaded or delayed the execution of the Courts decree for eviction. That would not be a correct way of looking at the things. The defendant was no longer a tenant and he couldno justification for saying that though a trespasser he was still entitled to the privileges of a tenant, who could enjoy the privileges under the Bent Control Order. 11.The Rent Control Order was, no doubt, for the benefit and protect. ion of tenants, but it will be going too far to say that the protection was to Continue even to erstwhile tenants despite the fact that their possession was as trespassers on the termination of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The moment a person ceased to be a tenant, he disentitled himself from the privileges he could have got under the Rent Control Order. Accepting the submission of Mr. The moment a person ceased to be a tenant, he disentitled himself from the privileges he could have got under the Rent Control Order. Accepting the submission of Mr. Bobde in this connection would virtually amount to giving a legal status of a tenant to a person who has been held by competent Courts to be a rank trespasser after the termination of the tenancy. No authority was shown in support of this impossible position. The defendant, who was no longer a tenant, could hot still insist on saying that the rent which the plaintiff could have got under the Rent Control Order should be treated as the measure of damages. The claim of the defendant that the mesne profits must be limited to the rent recoverable by the plaintiff under the provisions of the Rent, Control Order would virtually mean that the quantum of mesne profits was, not what the defendant had actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received but what the plaintiff as a landlord had lost or bad not been able to get. That would militate against the definition of mesne profits in section 2 (12) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. So long as he was the plaintiffs tenant, the defendant was paying a petty sum of Rs. 21 -10 -6 as monthly rent. By still presuming to be governed by the Rent Control Order, he was contending that he was liable to pay only ,that nominal rent long after he had ceased to be a tenant. There was nothing on the record to show that he could have been able to secure that accommodation for such nominal rent. On the contrary, the evidence on record showed that it was very difficult to secure any accommodation on rent at Akola .Even after being ordered to vacate the house for which he was paying a very small rent, the defendant has made it possible for himself to continue to occupy the premises for a long time. In the context of the unavailability of houses on tent, the value of this user of the tenement to the defendant after the termination of his tenancy, would necessarily be much more than the rent that he was paying to the plaintiff. 13. In that light, the quantum of mesne profits of Rs. 75 as fixed by the trial Court and Rs. 13. In that light, the quantum of mesne profits of Rs. 75 as fixed by the trial Court and Rs. 90 as fixed by the District Court would be "the value of the user of the land to the person in wrongful possession within the meaning of that expression used by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Fateh Chand V. Balklshan (1). 14. The contention of Mr. Bobde that the amounts fixed by the Court below represented the loss which the plaintiff was sustaining or had sustained would not bear scrutiny. On the arguments advanced by Mr. Bobde himself, the plaintiff as landlord would not have been in a position to get more than about Rs. 27 per month even if he were to succeed in getting the fair rent fixed on the basis of 25 per cent over and above the former rent, under clauses 4 to 6 of the Rent Control Order. Therefore, the loss of the plaintiff or to the plaintiff would have been only Rs. 27 p. m. at the most. The Courts below, however, had found under the circumstances indicated above, the money value or the user of these premises to the defendant. That was quantumised at Rs. 90 by the District Court. As was observed in paragraph 18 of the Supreme Court decision quoted above, the judgment -debtor -defendant had not led any evidence to show that that quantumised rent was excessive so as to require this Courts interference for reducing it. The argument of Mr. Bobde in that connection wa.s that no other evidence was necessary simply because the plaintiff could not have got any higher rent under the Rent Control Order and consequently, it should be presumed that the amount was excessive. Such a presumption could have been permissible only if the defendant had any right or justification for saying that he was or should still be governed by the Rent Control Order even after ceasing to be a tenant of the plaintiff. Mr. Padhye contended that the plaintiff had brought on record evidence to show that the adjacent flat of three rooms was fetching Rs. 75 and there were demands Of more than hundred rupees per month for this flat. Mr. Bobde was not right in saying that the plaintiff was thereby trying to prove what he could have got as a landlord. Padhye contended that the plaintiff had brought on record evidence to show that the adjacent flat of three rooms was fetching Rs. 75 and there were demands Of more than hundred rupees per month for this flat. Mr. Bobde was not right in saying that the plaintiff was thereby trying to prove what he could have got as a landlord. Obviously if he is governed by the Rent Control Order, he would not be able to get Rs. 100 even if there is a demand for similar premises on that rent. That evidence was led by the plaintiff to show the money value of the user of these premises to the defendant for the purposes of determining the quantum of mesne profits. In that view, and particularly, in the absence of any evidence from the defendant to show that this quantum was excessive, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is quite correct. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Application dismissed.