P C LAL CHOUDHURY Vs. BILTO MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the decree-holder from an order passed in execution proceedings relating to a rent decree obtained by him on 19 December 1938. The holding of the respondent was sold in the execution proceedings on 8th August 1939, and purchased by the decree-holder himself on 23 August 1939. He filed a stamp paper for his sale certificate, and the executing Court adjourned the proceeding to 11 September for confirmation of the sale. Three days before this, on 8 September, the judgment-debtor filed an application under Section 15 (a), Bihar Restoration of Bakasht Lands and Reduction of Arrears of Bent Act, 9 of 1938, on the ground that the rent "of the holding in suit had been reduced from Rs. 19-2.0 to Rs. 9-6-0 a year with effect from 1343 Fs. (the second of the four years in suit). The order reducing the rent had been passed on 24 February 1939, and the prayer of the judgment-debtor was that the decree which was being executed be amended in the light of the reduction allowed by the Rent Reduction Officer. This application was allowed by the Munsif, and the sale, held on 8th August 1939, set aside. An appeal was preferred to and heard by the District Judge, before whom it was unsuccessfully contended that the Court had no power to refuse to confirm the sale which had already been held, and that application under Section 15(a) of the Act of 1938 cannot be entertained after the execution sale. What Section 15 provides is (confining oneself to portions which are now material) that where the rent of an occupancy holding has been settled or reduced... under Clause (d) of Sub Section (1) of Section 112 A, Bihar Ten. Act... a landlord shall not, in any suit or proceeding instituted before or after the date on which this section comes into force, be entitled to recover from the raiyat of such holding any arrears of the rent of such holding in respect of the years covered by such suit or proceeding, at a rate in excess of the rent so... reduced,

(2.) This is the first section in chap. 3 of the Act, the last section in the Chapter being Section 20, which provides that "in this chapter proceeding includes an execution proceeding". Reading the two sections together, it would seem that where, as in this case the rent of an occupancy holding has been reduced under Clause (d) of Section 112A(1), Bihar Tenancy Act; the landlord shall not even in an execution proceeding be entitled to recover from the raiyat any arrears of rent in excess of the rate allowed by the Rent Reduction Officer.

(3.) The learned advocate for the appellant has argued that Secs.15 to 20 do not contemplate applications after a sale has been held in execution, and he has rested the argument on two grounds: (a) the section does not say what is to happen if a sale has taken place, and (2) no limitation has been provided for such applications. It does not seem to me that these considerations are sufficient to entitle one to hold that the sections do not contemplate applications after the execution sale. Execution proceedings do not come to an end with such sales, and it is a part of the execution proceeding to confirm the sale in due course. That Section 15(a) does not say what is to happen if a sale has taken place seems to me no reason for confining its operation to stages of execution proceedings previous to the sale, for if the landlord is not to be entitled to recover anything in excess of the reduced rents, whether in a suit or in execution proceeding, the decretal amount will have to be scaled down if execution proceedings be pending, and execution for the larger amount already decreed will necessarily fail.