9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether rent due from a subtenant, which had not yet become payable at the time of attachment, can be attached under Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. Interpretation of the term "debt" in Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. Whether the right to recover rent can be considered as saleable property under Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code. Analysis: 1. The second appeal dealt with the objection raised by a judgment-debtor regarding the attachment of rent due from a subtenant, which was not yet payable at the time of attachment. The first Court held that the rent becoming due at the time of objection was sufficient for attachment, even if it was attached before becoming due. However, the District Judge, relying on a previous court decision, ruled in favor of the judgment-debtor, stating that profits not yet accrued due were not attachable. The appellant argued that the previous case was not applicable as the rent in question would certainly become due at the time of attachment. 2. The interpretation of the term "debt" under Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code was crucial in this case. The appellant contended that the rent could be attached as a debt or saleable property. Reference was made to a previous English case, which highlighted that a debt involves an obligation incurred by the debtor with a liability to pay at a certain date. It was emphasized that until the obligation is fully incurred, there is no debt. Rent for a period still in existence was considered not a debt as the obligation was incomplete, based on the principle of "debitum in presenti, solvendum in future." 3. The judgment also addressed whether the right to recover rent could be considered as saleable property under Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was argued that the saleable property was not the rent itself but the title to recover it. However, it was clarified that the decree-holder did not intend to attach the title. Additionally, it was noted that an occupancy tenant could not transfer their title except through a sub-lease for a specific period, as per relevant sections of the Tenancy Act. The court concluded that the lower appellate court's decision was correct, dismissing the appeal with costs. 4. Justice Mukerji concurred with the interpretation of the term "debt" under Section 60, emphasizing that a debt must be an existing debt. He highlighted that the word "debts" in the section should not be limited to illustrating what is liable to be attached and sold. The judgment further discussed the liability of the sub-lessee to pay rent and the completeness of the liability at the time of attachment. It was concluded that if the sub-lessee was not in arrears, there was no debt due by him to the occupancy tenant. The right to recover rent was also briefly addressed, aligning with the decision of Justice Ashworth. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the attachment of rent due from a subtenant, the interpretation of the term "debt" under Section 60, and the consideration of the right to recover rent as saleable property.
|
