ORDER A. Abdul Hadi, J. 1. This civil revision petition is filed by the judgment debtor against the order dated 27-11-1989 allowing E.P. No. 8 of 1986 in O.S. No. 296 of 1982 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. 2. The decree is for past arrears of rent and future rent from 1-7-1982 till the date of possession at the ate of Rs. 1,240 per month. The possession has not been yet, since the decree is still the subject matter of Second Appeal No. 162 of 1986 on the file of this Court, which was filed by the petitioner after his failure in both the courts below, and since the petitioner had obtained stay regarding possession decree alone in the said Second Appeal. The E.P. is for executing the decree for future rents from 1-7-1982 the date of the suit till 31-12-1985, i.e., just prior to the filing of the execution petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner no doubt originally began her submission on the basis of the new amendment made to the Wakf Act 1954, by the Central Act 69 of 1954, by the Central Act 69 of 1984. But, since the said amendment Act 69 of 1984 has not yet been made applicable to the State of Tamil Nadu, the counsel did not press the said point any further. 4. Then, she contended that the above said decree for future rents from the date of the suit, 1-7-1982, all the date of delivery of possession was a nullity on the ground that under Order 20, Rule 12, C.P.C. no decree for future rents after the institution of the suit could be straightway passed without relegating the said question to be decided in a separate proceeding and after holding an enquiry therefore under Order 20, Rule 12(1)(c), C.P.C. and that too for a period exceeding three years from the date of the decree, So, the learned Counsel contended that the decree cannot be executed. 5. But, first of all, the statement of objections filed by the petitioner to the execution petition does not plead that the said decree is a nullity. 5. But, first of all, the statement of objections filed by the petitioner to the execution petition does not plead that the said decree is a nullity. All that is staled in the said statement of objections is that certain payments made and the expenditure incurred by the petitioner should be adjusted towards the said decree, and that, if so adjusted, no amount would be due at all under the decree. Anyway, I allowed the petitioner to raise the said point, but after hearing both the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner in this regard also. There is no bar under Order 20, Rule 12, C.P.C. for such a decree for future rent being passed along with a decree for possession without relegating the question of future rent or mesne profits to a separate proceedings. Order 20, Rule 12(1)(c), C.P.C. only says that. "The Court may pass a decree directing an enquiry as to the rent or mesne profits from the institution of the suit...." This Court has also held in Vella Veeran Chetti v. Veeran Chetti AIR1938Mad727 . It is perfectly competent to the Court, without directing an enquiry to pass a decree finally determining the amount of profits payable subsequent to the institution of the suit. No doubt, the Court fee has to be paid on the future rents of mesne profits. But, in the present case, admittedly, court fee has already been paid. The Supreme Court also in Chagwali v. Chandramal A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 736has observed as follows: Once it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to eject the defendant, it follows that from the date of the decree granting the relief of ejectment to the plaintiff, the defendant who remains in possession of the property, despite the decree, must pay mesne profits or damages for use and occupation of the said property until it is delivered to the plaintiff. In the present case, as stated earlier, possession has not yet been given. 6. Further in the decisions in B.I. Singh v. B.D. Singh 23 All. 151 PC and in Lucky Kochu Vareed v. Mariappagounder A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1214 it was held that the three years period stipulated on Order 20, Rule 12(1)(c) CPC means only three years from the date of the decree, which has become final. 6. Further in the decisions in B.I. Singh v. B.D. Singh 23 All. 151 PC and in Lucky Kochu Vareed v. Mariappagounder A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1214 it was held that the three years period stipulated on Order 20, Rule 12(1)(c) CPC means only three years from the date of the decree, which has become final. Now, that the second appeal is pending in the present case, the said period has not yet begun at all. Hence, the decree for future rent in the present case is in order, and, there is no substance in the argument of the petitioner. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted in her written submission which has filed subsequent to her oral submission, that the execution court erred in dismissing the petitioner's. EA 280 of 1989 for appointing a Commissioner to note down the costs of the constructions put up by the petitioner on the site in question. But, this submission also has no merit The order in the above said EA was passed on 24-7-1989 itself, i.e., even prior to the present order in the execution petition, which was passed on 27.11.1989. There was no appeal or revision against the said order in the EA 280 of 1989 and it had already become final. The said order also gave a cogent reasoning for dismissing the said EA. Therefore, it cannot be contend in this revision against the order in the execution petition, dated 27.11.1989 that the execution court did not consider what was agitated in EA No. 280 of 1989. 8. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is absolutely without any merit and hence is dismissed with costs.