The Calcutta Law Journal Short Notes of Cases Articles and Other Matters 1st June 1905

The second stage of the suit if the landlord* succeeds in getting a decree for rent is started by the presentation of a petition asking the Court to execute the decree and the question arises whether this is a thing which the landlord is authorized by the Act to do. [...] So that in the entire proceeding carried on in the manner provided by the Bengal Tenancy Act from the institution of a suit for the recovery of an arrear of rent to tLe realization of the decree by the sale of the tenure or holding there does not appear to be one single thing which the landlord is authorized or required to do by the Act and consequently in a case of several joint landlords it i [...] The point raised in the case was whether section 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act prohibiting the entertaiment of any claim to a tenure or holding attached and ordered to be sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent due thereon applied to a case where the decree was obtained by a fractional sharer of a Zemindari for his share of the rent of the tenure. [...] With all deference it is submitted that the bringing to sale of the tenure is not an act to be done by the landlord ; as has been endeavoured to be shown in the preceding lines the only act which he or rather the holder of a decree for rent has to do in order to cause the tenure to be sold in the manner provided by Chapter XIV of the Act is to present an application which again is presented not u [...] The case of Leake v. Robinson was cited before their Lordships of the Judicial Committee so *far back as the year 1883.- (See Kunzar Tarakeswar Roy v. Kumar Sethi Sekhareswar) to I. A. 55 and the existence of the rule laid down in the case cited appears to have been recognized by the Judicial Committee in that case though they were of opinion that on the true construction of the instrument befo