Judgment

BHAGWATI, J. - This appeal by special leave raises a short question of law as to the scope of garnishee proceeding under S. 73. sub-s. (5) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 read with Section 46 (5A) of the Indian Income- tax Act, 1922. A brief narration of the facts giving rise to the appeal would be sufficient to explain the background against which the question arises for determination in the appeal.

2. One Rai Bhupati Nath Deb Bahadur died on 23rd September, 1959 leaving considerable movable and immovable properties which included inter alia a building situated at No. 13. India Exchange Place, Calcutta. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 claiming respectively to be the son and daughter of the deceased delivered to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty an account in form ED-1 of the properties in respect of which, according to them, estate duty was payable on the death of the deceased. The account was filed by respondents Nos. 3 & 4 in their capacity as executors of the Will D/- 20-12-1957 said to have been made by the deceased prior to his death. The Assistant Controller issued notice under Section 58, sub-section (2) to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as accountable persons and after hearing them, made an order dated 23rd September 1960 assessing the principal value of the estate of the deceased and determining a sum of Rs. 1,40,090.20 as the amount payable as estate duty. It appears that the Assistant Controller was not able to recover the amount of estate duty from respondents Nos. 3 and 4, since most of the estate of the deceased consisted of immovable properties which were let out to different tenants and according to respondents Nos. 3 and 4, rent was not being paid to them by the tenants. One of the immovable properties left by the deceased, namely, the building situate at No. 13. India Exchange Place, Calcutta was in the possession of the appellant. According to the appellant it had been let out to him by nine persons who were the nephews and nices of the deceased and who claimed to be the heirs of the deceased on the basis that the deceased died without making any Will and did not leave any widow or son or daughter surviving him. The lease given to the appellant by these nine persons, who may for the sake of convenience be hereinafter referred to as the lessors was under a registered deed dated 5th March, 1960 and it was a lease for a period of thirtyone years with effect from 1st March, 1960 carrying rent at the rate of Rs. 1,400/- per month. Since the leased premises - that is how we propose to describe the building leased to the appellant by the lessors - admittedly belonged to the estate of the deceased, the rent payable by the appellant was a fortiori an amount which in law belonged to the estate and hence the Assistant Controller issued a notice dated 9th January, 1962, to the appellant under Section 73, sub-section (5) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 read with Section 46, sub-section (5A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1922) pointing out that "a sum of Rupees 1,40,090.20 is due from Shri Tulsi Charan Deb and others on account of estate duty as accountable persons to the estate of late Rai Bhupati Nath Deb" and requiring him to pay forth-with "any amount due from you to or held by you, for, or on account of the said estate of Bhupati Nath Deb Bahadur" upto the amount of Rs. 1,40,090.20 as also "to pay money which may subsequently become due from you to them or which you may subsequently hold for or on account of them upto the amount of arrears still remaining unpaid, forthwith on the money becoming due or being held by you as aforesaid, as such payment is required to meet the amount due by the accountable person in respect of arrears of estate duty". It was stated in the notice that any payment made by the appellant in compliance with the request contained in the notice would in law be "deemed to have been made under the authority of the accountable person" and the receipt of the As