Order XXXIX Rule 10 permits recovery only of admitted dues, not disputed mesne profits.

The appellant had obtained an eviction decree against the respondent on the ground that the respondent was an unlawful occupant under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997; the decree was affirmed up to the Supreme Court.

In subsequent proceedings concerning mesne profits, a Commissioner was appointed to assess the amount payable.

The appellant applied under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a lump-sum deposit of ₹50 lakh towards interim occupation charges and payment of ₹1,00,300 towards admitted and undisputed dues for the period from June 2021 to April 2026.

The learned Trial Judge dismissed the application by Order No. 49 dated 7 August 2026 in Title Suit No. 1068 of 2021.

In appeal, the respondent conceded, on instructions, that ₹1,00,300 was payable, but expressed concern that payment solely to the appellant might expose the respondent to similar claims by two other landlords.

Whether the appellant was entitled under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC to an interim direction for payment of ₹1,00,300, representing the admitted rent/occupation charges for June 2021 to April 2026?

Whether the broader claim for mesne profits, including the appellant’s claim for ₹50 lakh, could be directed to be paid under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC before final adjudication?

Whether payment to the appellant would protect the respondent against subsequent claims by the other landlords for the same period?

The Court applied Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which permits the Court to direct payment or deposit of money admitted by a party to be due to the claimant or admitted to be held for the claimant.

The provision is confined to an amount that is the subject matter of the suit and is admitted to be due; it does not authorise payment of a disputed or unadjudicated claim for mesne profits.

The Court also proceeded on the effect of the existing eviction decree and the respondent’s concession regarding the admitted amount, while treating the larger mesne-profit claim as sub judice before the Trial Court.

The Court held that the appeal was effectively confined to prayer (B), concerning the admitted sum of ₹1,00,300.

Since the respondent expressly conceded liability for that amount, it fell within the limited scope of Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC as an admitted sum due to the appellant.

By contrast, the appellant’s larger claim for mesne profits, including the proposed ₹50 lakh deposit, remained subject to assessment and adjudication in the pending final-decree proceedings and could not be ordered under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC merely on the basis of the appellant’s assertion.

To address the respondent’s concern regarding the two other landlords, the Court directed that payment to the appellant would protect the respondent from further claims by those landlords for the same period; any inter se claim by them would have to be pursued against the appellant, not the respondent.

The amount paid was also directed to be adjusted against any higher mesne-profit decree ultimately passed in favour of the appellant.

The respondent was directed to pay ₹1,00,300 to the appellant towards mesne profits for June 2021 to April 2026 within one week.

That payment would absolve the respondent of further liability for mesne profits relating to the suit property for that period and would shield the respondent from corresponding claims by the other landlords.

If the final mesne-profit decree exceeded ₹1,00,300, the amount already paid would be deducted from the final amount payable.

The Trial Court was requested to conclude the final mesne-profit proceedings by the end of November 2026; CAN 1 of 2026 and CAN 2 of 2026 were consequently disposed of, with no order as to costs.