1965 (12) TMI 150 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a portion of a main residential house let out to tenants is deemed to be in the judgment-debtor's occupation under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Whether a building attached to the main residential house let out to a tenant is considered to be in the judgment-debtor's occupation under the same provision.
3. Whether involuntary letting due to an order from a competent authority affects the judgment-debtor's occupation status under the provision.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether a portion of a main residential house let out to tenants is deemed to be in the judgment-debtor's occupation under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The court examined whether the term "main residential house" includes parts let out to tenants. It was argued that the judgment-debtor should be considered in constructive possession of the entire house, even if parts are rented out. However, the court concluded that the term "main residential house" must be read in conjunction with "occupied by him." The court held that if a judgment-debtor lets out a part of the house, that part cannot be treated as being in his occupation and is not entitled to exemption from attachment. The court emphasized that the statute's language is clear and does not support the notion of constructive occupation. The exemption applies only to the portion of the house physically occupied by the judgment-debtor.

Issue 2: Whether a building attached to the main residential house let out to a tenant is considered to be in the judgment-debtor's occupation under the same provision.

The court addressed whether buildings attached to the main residential house and let out to tenants are exempt from attachment. It was argued that the attached buildings should be exempt if the main house is occupied by the judgment-debtor. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that if a portion of the main building let out is not exempt, the same applies to attached buildings. Thus, buildings attached to the main residential house and let out to tenants are not considered in the judgment-debtor's occupation and are liable to attachment.

Issue 3: Whether involuntary letting due to an order from a competent authority affects the judgment-debtor's occupation status under the provision.

This issue involved whether involuntary letting, such as requisitioning by a competent authority, affects the judgment-debtor's occupation status. The court acknowledged the hardship faced by judgment-debtors in such cases but held that the plain terms of the statute do not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary letting. The court concluded that even if the letting is involuntary, the portion of the house not in the judgment-debtor's physical occupation is not exempt from attachment. The court emphasized that the relevant date for determining occupation is the date of attachment, and the statute does not provide for constructive occupation in such cases.

Separate Judgment by P.C. Pandit, J.:

Justice P.C. Pandit dissented on the third issue, arguing that in cases of involuntary letting due to orders from competent authorities, the judgment-debtor should still be considered in occupation of the property. He emphasized that the object of Section 60(1)(ccc) is to provide relief to judgment-debtors and that a liberal interpretation should be given to the term "occupied by him." Justice Pandit argued that involuntary letting should not deprive the judgment-debtor of the exemption provided by the statute and that the judgment-debtor should be deemed to be in occupation of the entire house in such cases.

Conclusion:

The court answered the first and second questions in the negative, holding that portions of the house let out to tenants, whether part of the main residential house or attached buildings, are not exempt from attachment. On the third question, the majority held that involuntary letting does not affect the judgment-debtor's occupation status, and such portions are also not exempt from attachment. However, Justice P.C. Pandit dissented, arguing that involuntary letting should be considered as the judgment-debtor's occupation, providing them with exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc).