JUDGMENT 1. This is landlord's second appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.9-A/1996. 2. Facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under: i. Appellant/plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and for damages @ Rs.50/- per day against the tenants. ii. The trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 2.4.1996, decreed the suit granting decree of eviction and Rs.3,000/- as arrears of rent from 01.07.1994 till filing of the suit with interest against respondents No.2 & 3 (since deceased). iii. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the second part of the decree, the appellant preferred first appeal. The first appellate Court modified the decree to some extent and granted decree of Rs.3,000/- against respondent No.1. iv. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by not awarding decree of arrears of rent/damages from the date of institution of the suit till delivery of vacant possession by respondent, the instant second appeal has been filed by the landlord. 3. This Court, vide order dated 26.6.2013, admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in not awarding the mesne profit to the appellant till the vacation of accommodation from respondent No.1?" 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of both the Courts below including judgment and decree impugned. 5. Section 2 (i) of the M.P./C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961') reads as under: "2(i) "tenant" means a person by whom or in whose account or behalf the rent of any accommodation is, or, but for a contract express or implied, would be payable for any accommodation and includes any person occupying the accommodation as a sub-tenant and also, any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy whether before or after the commencement of this Act: but shall not include any person against whom any order or decree for eviction has been made." 6. On a plain reading of the definition aforesaid, it is clear that a tenant even after the termination of his contractual tenancy does not become an unauthorized occupant of the accommodation but remains a tenant, so long as eviction decree is passed against him and till then no damages (mesne profits) can be granted in lieu of rent. On a plain reading of the definition aforesaid, it is clear that a tenant even after the termination of his contractual tenancy does not become an unauthorized occupant of the accommodation but remains a tenant, so long as eviction decree is passed against him and till then no damages (mesne profits) can be granted in lieu of rent. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705 , has held in para-17 of its judgment as under: "17. In the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the definition of a "tenant" is contained in clause (1) of Section 2. Tenant includes "any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy" [Section 2(1)(ii)] and does not include "any person against whom an order or decree for eviction has been made" [Section 2(1)(A)]. This definition is identical with the definition of tenant dealt with by this Court in Chander Kali Bai case. The respondent tenant herein having suffered an order for eviction on 19-3-2001, his tenancy would be deemed to have come to an end with effect from that date and he shall become an unauthorised occupant. It would not make any difference if the order of eviction has been put in issue in appeal or revision and is confirmed by the superior forum at a latter date. The date of termination of tenancy would not be postponed by reference to the doctrine of merger. 8. In the instant case, the eviction decree has been passed by the trial Court on 02.04.1996. Therefore, in the light of dictum of Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the tenant's possession would become wrongful from the date of decree passed by the trial Court. 9. Further, the house was let out by the plaintiff/appellant on a monthly rent of Rs.1000/-. The Supreme Court, in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Limited, (2005) 1 SCC 705 (supra) has further observed in para 20: "20. In the case at hand, it has to be borne in mind that the tenant has been paying Rs 371.90p. rent of the premises since 1944. The value of real estate and rent rates have skyrocketed since that day. The premises are situated in the prime commercial locality in the heart of Delhi, the capital city. In the case at hand, it has to be borne in mind that the tenant has been paying Rs 371.90p. rent of the premises since 1944. The value of real estate and rent rates have skyrocketed since that day. The premises are situated in the prime commercial locality in the heart of Delhi, the capital city. It was pointed out to the High Court that adjoining premises belonging to the same landlord admeasuring 2000 sq ft have been recently let out on rent at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000 per month. The Rent Control Tribunal was right in putting the tenant on term of payment of Rs. 15,000 per month as charges for use and occupation during the pendency of appeal. The Tribunal took extra care to see that the amount was retained in deposit with it until the appeal was decided so that the amount in deposit could be disbursed by the appellate court consistently with the opinion formed by it at the end of the appeal. No fault can be found with the approach adopted by the Tribunal. The High Court has interfered with the impugned order of the Tribunal on an erroneous assumption that any direction for payment by the tenant to the landlord of any amount at any rate above the contractual rate of rent could not have been made. We cannot countenance the view taken by the High Court. We may place on record that it has not been the case of the respondent tenant before us, nor was it in the High Court, that the amount of Rs. 15,000 assessed by the Rent Control Tribunal was unreasonable or grossly on the higher side." 10. Applying the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the damages/mesne profit can certainly be awarded at the rate, more than agreed rate of rent. However, in the instant case, the Courts below have not awarded any sum towards damages/mesne profit in lieu of rent from the date of decree passed by the trial Court on 02.04.1996 till delivery of vacant possession to the appellant by the tenant, and therefore, the lower appellate was not justified in not awarding the mesne profit to the appellant from 02.04.1996 till the vacation of accommodation by respondent No.1. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly in appellant's favour. 11. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly in appellant's favour. 11. Looking to the fact that the suit house is situated in the city of Bilaspur and rent rates have skyrocketed since that date, in my opinion, the appellant is entitled for the amount of damages in lieu of rent @ Rs.50/- per day and Rs.1500/- per month from the date of trial Court's decree, i.e., 02.04.1996 till its delivery of vacant possession. 12. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled for a decree of mesne profits in lieu of rent @ Rs.50/- accordingly from the date of passing of trial Court's decree, i.e., from 02.04.1996 till the date when tenant has delivered vacant possession of suit house to the landlord. The rest part of the judgment and decree shall remain intact. 13. The respondent No.1 is required to pay the amount of damages/mesne profits, as mentioned herein above, after adjusting the amount, which it may have already paid to the landlord for the period commencing from the date of decree till the vacant possession of the suit house. 14. No order as to costs. 15. A decree be drawn accordingly. Appeal Partly Allowed.