RAMKISHUN LAL Vs. JUGALKISHORE LAL, CLAIMANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord of holding No. 137 sued the recorded tenant, Rupchand, for rent in September 1935, and obtained a decree on 10 February 1936. He then applied for execution of the decree. The opposite party, Jugalkishore Lal, who claims to have purchased the land in dispute in execution of a money decree on 19 June 1935, raised an objection to the execution on the ground that the rent had been reduced by the Rent Reduetion Officer. This objection was upheld. Jugalkishore then made another objection with regard to the amount that was due on the basis of the reduced rent, and this objection was also upheld. Eventually, the holding was sold in execution of the rent decree on 24 May 1940, and was purchased by the petitioner to whom delivery of possession was given on 14th August 1940. Jugalkishore then complained to the executing Court that he had been dispossessed and prayed, under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P.C., that he should be restored to possession on the strength of his purchase in execution of the money decree on 19 June 1935. The application has been allowed and it is against the order allowing the application of Jugalkishore that the auction purchaser in execution of the rent decree has moved this Court.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the only remedy open to Jugalkishore in the events which have happened was that provided by Section 174, Bihar Tenancy Act. That section provides that where a holding has been sold for an arrear of rent in respect of it, then, within thirty days from the date of the sale, the judgment-debtor, or any person whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in Court, for payment to the decree-holder the amount recoverable under the decree with costs, and, for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to 5, per cent, of the purchase money.

(3.) On behalf of Jugalkishore, it is contended that he is not a person whose interests are affected by the sale, because his purchase had been recognized by the landlord prior to the sale in execution of the rent decree and that, therefore, the holding could not be sold in execution of a decree in a suit to which he was not a party. There is no doubt about the fact that Jugalkishore was recognized as the tenant of this holding by the landlord before the sale in execution of the rent decree. The effect of that recognition was that a fresh tenancy was created between the landlord and Jugalkishore and unless that tenancy was subject to conditions which prevented the relationship of landlord and tenant from coming into operation immediately, the holding could not be sold in execution of a decree to which Jugalkishore was not a party. It is not alleged in the present litigation that there were any such conditions. The case appears to be governed by the decision in Girish Chandra V/s. narain Nath A.I.R. 1919 Cal. 342.