J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the executing Court dated March 10, 1987, whereby the objections filed on behalf of the judgment-debtor to the attachment of the property in execution of the money decree were accepted.
(2.) THE decree-holder M/s. Billa Mal Hemant Kumar obtained a money decree for a sum of Rs. 7,830/- against Durga Dass. In execution thereof, the decree-holder applied for attachment of the shops belonging to the judgment-debtor and also made a separate application for attachment of the rent of the said shops. Objection petition was filed on behalf of the judgment-debtor that the property, in dispute, could not be attached as it was allotted to him by the Rehabilitation Department and he had only paid by then only two instalments and that the remaining instalments were yet to be paid. Thus, according to the judgment-debtor, the ownership rights were yet to vest in him. Since he had not become the owner thereof as yet, the same could not be attached. As regards the rent, the objection was that the judgment-debtor had not given the shops on rent. The executing Court found that the judgment-debtor had not become the owner as yet and therefore the property could not be attached as yet. As regards the rent, the view taken was that the same could not be attached. It was the legal obligation of the tenant to pay the rent to the landlord and on his failure to do so, he becomes liable for ejectment. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent judgment-debtor that the impugned order was appealable in view of the judgment of this Court in Avinash Chander v. Mohan Lal, 1984 Punjab Law Reporter 497, and since no appeal was filed, the revision petition was not maintainable.
(3.) FACED with this situation, the learned counsel for the decree-holder-petitioner submitted that the impugned order was a composite one as it dealt with the attachment of the immovable property as well as the attachment of the rent i.e., movable property. Even if the order was appealable with respect to immovable property, even then the decree-holder was entitled to attach the rent which the judgment-debtor was realising from his tenants. As regards the attachment of rent, the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor submitted that future rent could not be attached. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon Raman v. Mathai, AIR 1952 Travancore-Cochin 508 and Bankey Lal v. Nattha Ram, AIR 1929 Allahabad 199.;