DHANANJAY DAS Vs. KALASASI CHAKRABARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule raises an interesting question under Section 171 of Bengal Tenancy Act, on which apparently there is no previous decision. The depositor under Section 171 of the Act was put into possession by the order of the executing court following the procedure approved of in the case of Umatul Fatima v. Nemai Charan Banerji,1940 6 CLJ 592 (594). The present Applicant, being the original judgement-debtor, moved the court to obtain possession again of the property on the ground that the period specified in Section 171(7)(c) had expired, namely, that during the period the debt with interest due thereon has been discharged.

(2.) The learned munsif has held that the Applicant's remedy is byway, of a suit and has, therefore; rejected the application.

(3.) The Act itself provides no explicit procedure either as to how the depositor is to be put into possession, or how, as in the present case, he is to be removed from possession. The former question has been settled by the case cited. The learned Judges remarked: