SATISH CHANDRA CHATTERJEE Vs. ATUL CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is one by the decree-holder and raises a short question under, Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act. The appellant has lost in both the Courts below.

(2.) The material facts are the following: The appellant obtained a rent decree against the respondents on 11 November 1941 in respect of an occupancy holding and for the years 1344 to 1347 B. Section Thereafter in 1943, he obtained another decree this time for the years 1348 to 1349 B.S. He chose to put into execution the second decree first which he did by sent Execution Case No. 902 of 1944 and purchased the holding himself on 16 August 1944. Thereupon, in November 1944 he put the first decree into execution and sought to proceed against other properties of the judgment-debtors when he was met with a plea under Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act.

(3.) Both the Courts below have given effect to the plea though on slightly different reasons. The trial Court appears to think that when a landlord obtains two successive decrees for rent and puts the later one into execution, purchasing the holding himself, the liability for the previous rent is automatically extinguished. The lower appellate Court proceeds along a different line. It seems to think that although it is not expressly so stated in Clause (b) of Section 168A, yet the intention of the Legislature is that in circumstances like the present, the tenant would no longer be liable to have other properties belonging to him sold in auction.