PHANI BHUSAN MUKHERJEE Vs. PURNA CHANDRA BAGCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows. The appellant obtained a decree for rent against the respondents in respect of a darputni held by the latter under him in Bent Suit No. 5 of 1938 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Burdwan. The decree was put into execution in Rent Execution case no. 157 of 1940 of that Court and the entire tenure in arrears was put up to sale on 4 June 1941 and purchased by the decree holder himself for a sum which just covered the decretal dues and costs. The result was that the decree was satisfied in full by the sale of the darputni tenure. On 7 July 1941 which was the date fixed by the Court for confirmation of the sale, the purchaser presented an application to the Court stating that as he was himself the decree-holder, it was not necessary for him to deposit the arrears of rent a payable in respect of the tenure between the date of the institution of the suit and that of the confirmation of the sale as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act, and that the sale might be confirmed without any such deposit. It was stated in the said application that the decree-holder had already in- stituted a suit against the judgment-debtors claiming rents for the subsequent period. The application was resisted by the judgment-debtors who contended inter alia that the decree- holder purchaser should either make a deposit as is required by Sub-section (3) of Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act, or he should put in an application certifying payment of the arrears of rent for the period mentioned above.

(2.) The trial Court accepted the contention of the decree-holder and held that Sub-section (1), Clause(b) as well as Sub-section (3) of Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act, were applicable only when the auction purchaser of the tenure or holding was a third party and not the decree- holder himself, and consequently the decree-holder purchaser was not required to make a deposit prior to the sale being confirmed.

(3.) On appeal, the judgment was reversed by the District Judge, Burdwan and it was held by the learned District Judge that regard being had to the plain language of the provisions, it could not be said that the word purchaser in Clause(b) of Sub-section (1) as well as in Sub- section (3) of Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act, was restricted to a third party purchaser only. It is the propriety of this view that is being challenged before us in this appeal.