Short Note : 1. The relevant facts, material for the purpose of this appeal, are that the appellants sold their house situated in Khargone to the plaintiff respondent on 08-04-55 vide sale-deed Ex. P/1. A rent-note Ex. P/2 in respect of this house at the rate of Rs. 18 per month was also executed by the defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff for a period of eleven months. As this rent-note was not signed by defendant No.3, the plaintiff also claimed possession on the basis of title. 2. The defendant-appellants contested the claim on the ground that the transaction between the parties was not as a purchaser and seller but as a creditor and debtor and for the loan of Rs. 1,200 advanced by the plaintiff, the sale-deed was executed by way of security and the rent-note was executed in lieu of interest. Further, according to the defendants, the plaintiff had agreed to reconvey the property. 3. On an appeal being filed by the plaintiff, the learned lower appellate Court decreed the plaintiff's claim for possession as sale as well as for Rs. 539 as claimed in the suit. Hence this second appeal by the defendants. 4. Held : It may be noted at the outset that the appellants have not preferred any appeal against the money-part of the decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court which has, thus, become final. It means that the appellants have no grievance regarding the decree for arrears of rent as well as mesne profits. Admittedly, the defendants did not remit tile arrears of rent within the statutory period after the receipt of the quit-notice, nor did they deposit the same or the monthly rent, during the pendency of the suit, in the Court. It is not also in dispute that there was no dispute regarding the arrears of rent, the rate of rent or the person to whom it was payable. 5. Both the lower Courts have concurrently found, on evidence, that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, and, consequently, no interference with that finding of fact is called for in this second appeal. 5. Both the lower Courts have concurrently found, on evidence, that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, and, consequently, no interference with that finding of fact is called for in this second appeal. That apart, the appellants having not challenged the money part of the decree viz., the arrears of rent and mense profits and, therefore, they are now estopped to contend that the relationship of landlord and tenant has not been established between the parties in this case. 6. That apart, the appellants have failed to prove that it was just a transaction of loan. The learned lower appellate Court, on consideration and appreciation of evidence has found that grounds of eviction under the present Accommodation Control Act, have been made out by the plaintiff-respondent and, consequently, the appellants have lost protection under that Act on account of there own laches. In these circumstances, I am of opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. Further, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff-respondent has also obtained possession of the suit-house in execution of the decree granted in his favour but there is no material to indicate on what date he actually obtained the possession. However, when a decree of ejectment was granted in his favour, there was no justification for the lower appellate Court in not awarding future mesne profits till the delivery of possession without assigning any reasons, more so, when the plaintiff had claimed past mesne profits upto the date of the suit and which have been granted. In this situation the plaintiff-respondent is certainly entitled to future mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of obtaining actual possession of the suit accommodation and, therefore, his cross-objections must be allowed. Appeal dismissed. Cross-objections allowed.