LACHMAN Vs. JARBANDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of an objection made by a judgment-debtor of the present appellant to the attachment of certain rent due to him as occupancy tenant, from his subtenant. At the date of the attachment, the rent of which attachment was made, had not become payable by the Subtenant, the period in respect of which the rent was attached being still incomplete. The judgment- debtor accordingly objected that this rent was not covered by the provisions of Section 60, Civil P.C., which permits attachment of debts and other saleable property moveable or immovable belonging to the judgment-debtor. The first Court held that as the rent had become due at the date when the objection was heard, it was immaterial that the attachment was made before the rent had become due. It also held that there was no reason why rent could not be attached in advance, i.e., before it became due.

(2.) In appeal, the District Judge upheld the contention of the judgment-debtor on the ground that there was the authority of a Bench of this Court, that profits not yet accrued due were not susceptible of attachment, namely, the case of Sher Singh V/s. Sri Ram [1903] 30 All, 246.

(3.) In this appeal it is submitted that this case was not relevant to the present facts. In that case it was clearly held that what was attached was a right to certain profits which might never become due, whereas in the present case there can be no question that at the date of the attachment there was a certainly that the rent would became due. Reference, however, in that decision was made to the English case of Webb V/s. Stenton [1883] 11 Q.B.D. 518. In that case the Queen's Bench held in effect that a debt involves (a) an obligation incurred by the debtor, (b) a liability on the part of the debtor to pay for that obligation at a certain date. Until the obligation had been fully incurred, there is no debt. "Accrued" did not mean that the obligation was incomplete but merely that the date for payment had not arrived. Debitum in presenti, solvendum in future. Rent in respect of a period still in existence is thus not a debt at all as the obligation is not complete.