K. Kannan, J.— (oral). 1. The petition is against the order rejecting an application for amendment taking up an additional plea that the petition itself is not maintainable at the instance of the landlord since in the appeal filed by the tenant against the order of eviction passed with reference to the same premises the landlord had claimed mesne profits at the time when the tenant had applied for stay and the conduct of the landlord in treating his possession as unlawful only would amount to an admission by the landlord that the status of a tenant does not any longer obtain to the tenant and therefore the petition for eviction itself cannot be filed. 2. The whole argument is built on the erroneous understanding of law on the subject. In Atma Ram Properties (P) ltd. Vs. M/s Federal Motors Pvt Ltd. 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 1 the Supreme Court was considering a real situation of Indian Courts of the inability to dispose of appeals within short time frame and the landlords who had the benefit of order of eviction could not secure possession for a long period although they had favourable orders. In many a situation the tenant was only interested in prolonging his possession by litigation on payment of low rents. The Court, therefore made a judicial innovation, as it were, by allowing for making the scales even and compensating the landlord appropriately as a quit pro quo for an interim order of stay obtained by the tenant. This payment was not to be final and if the landlord was unsuccessful and the tenant was successful in assailing the order of eviction, the amount received in excess by landlord was bound to be set off against the future rent accruals. In other words, the payment that a tenant makes at the time of securing interim order when the order of stay is made absolute during the pendency of the appeal, is still provisional since that the liability of mesne profits would be taken as becoming final only when the ground of eviction was sustained at the Appellate Forum and the order passed already was upheld in the Appellate Forum also. On the other hand, in the event of the tenant's success, it is not as if the tenant resurrects himself as statutory tenant for the first time and that he was an unlawful occupant during the pendency of appeal. The tenant if he is evicted and possession is not taken by the landlord, he continues to be a statutory tenant. That status cannot be vacated merely by the fact of order of eviction when the proceedings are still pending and await consideration at the appellate forum. I cannot allow for an interpretation which is unrealistic that in every situation where the appeal is pending his possession becomes unlawful. Learned counsel would refer to a judgment of this Court in Banarsi Dass Vs. Devi Dayal and others 1967 (2) ILR (Pb.)612 where the Court was considering a case of a tenant awaiting eviction in execution where as possession was without authority of law quondam. The tenant was setting up hostile title by asserting in himself permanent title without surrendering tenanted premises. Learned counsel wants me to refer to para 11. Mere termination of tenancy is of no consequence. The tenant will still continue to be a tenant so long as he does not surrender possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord. It is only after the surrender of the possession of the tenanted premises that the relationship of landlord and tenant will come to an end. This contention loses sight of the fact that there is a valid decree of eviction against the tenant. According to our view, once a decree for eviction is passed under Section 13 of the Act, there is an end of the relationship of landlord and tenant and the tenant, who is awaiting eviction in execution, is merely in possession without authority of law. He has no right, after the execution decree, to continue in possession; and it cannot be said in these circumstances that his possession is that of a tenant. The eviction decree completely puts an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant.” 3. This was in a particular context that the tenant who was asserting title in himself could not have any benefit and his possession must be taken at sufferance. The eviction decree completely puts an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant.” 3. This was in a particular context that the tenant who was asserting title in himself could not have any benefit and his possession must be taken at sufferance. I will not allow for an interpretation which is artificial that when an order of eviction is passed and when there is an appeal pending, the possession of the tenant is unlawful. So long as the order of stay is operative and the consideration of whether the order of eviction could be assailed or not has not become final, the tenant continues his status that is protected by law. The protection is not merely by virtue of statutory provision but also by the Courts' order where there are circumstances made for grant of stay. As I have already explained the direction for mesne profits is a provisional arrangement and does not conclude the status of the tenant during the pendency of the appeal. 4. The contention raised therefore that the subsequent petition itself by the landlord was not maintainable is untenable. The subsequent petition for eviction is brought on a ground which is different from an earlier petition. There is no bar to a landlord filing any number of petitions on distinct grounds. The maintainability of the petition cannot therefore be doubted. The order is sustained and the revision petition is dismissed.