AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 176 wordsHenderson, J.—I am not surprised to find that this Rule is not opposed. The Petitioner obtained a rent-decree. In accordance with the provisions of sec. 168A of the Bengal Tenancy Act he executed it by putting up the holding to sale. It was not possible for him to execute it in any other way. In order to protect landlords the purchaser in such a sale is liable to pay to the decree-holder any rent which may become payable between the date of the institution of the suit and the date of the confirmation of the sale. As the Petitioner is both decree-holder and purchaser, no question of paying the arrears of rent arises. The Munsif has held that the Petitioner must pay this money into Court and solemnly draw it out again. I cannot imagine what useful purpose Would be served by such a procedure.
The Rule is accordingly made absolute and the order of the Munsif calling upon the Petitioner to make this deposit is set aside. I make no order as to costs.