BHOURILAL AGARWALLA Vs. ASHUTOSH ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff instituted the previous suit for ejectment, for rent and for mesne profits. In that suit the claim for mesne profits was not pressed and therefore that claim was dismissed. Subsequently the present suit was instituted claiming mesne profits.

(2.) The first point taken by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that this is really a suit for profits and therefore, the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. A person may lawfully be entitled to some benefits arising out of a property. This we understand to be profit. But when a person gets some benefit of a property because of his wrongful possession, we do not call it profit, we call it mesne profits. Therefore, profits within the meaning of the Article under the Small Cause Courts Act does not include mesne profits. Finally the matter came up betore a Full Bench of this Court and it was held that the suit for mesne profits was a suit in the nature of being cognizable by a Small Cause Court.

(3.) Mr. Sen Gupta on behalf of the petitioner further states that here there was no dispossession by anybody. The former tenant continued in possession and therefore he did not dispossess anybody and hence it was not mesne profits within the meaning of Order 20 Rule 12 C. P. C. The context of Order 20 Rule 12 C. P. C. is a suit for ejectment. That context refers to wrongful possession and the definition of the word 'mesne profits' refers to that very same thing namely, wrongful possession, not dispossession. In that view of the matter, the first point must be overruled.