When the execution petition for the sale of the attached property of the judgment debtor in E.P.No.165 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem was ordered, through the impugned order, the judgment debtor laid the present revision assailing the impugned order.

2. The decree holder obtained a decree in O.S.No.255 of 2002 for a principal sum of Rs.9,500/- and for the total sum of Rs.19,372.15. She laid the present execution petition under Order 21 Rules 64 and 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) to sell the petition schedule property for the realization of the decretal amount. The schedule property is a terraced house in 194 square yards of site in R.S.No.62 of 2002 at Ganapavaram, West Godavari District. The schedule itself described that the judgment debtor has been in possession of the EP schedule property. The decree holder valued the property at Rs.1,00,000/-. The Amin (Field Assistant) valued the property at Rs.80,000/-.

3. Notice was issued to the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor laid counter contending that he is an agricultural labourer and that the property under attachment, therefore, is exempt under Section 60 CPC so much so the same is not liable for sale. The execution Court recorded the evidence on both sides. The decree holder examined herself as PW.1. She did not choose to mark any document in support of her contention. The judgment debtor examined himself as RW.1. He examined two other witnesses. He marked Ex.R.1, which is a ration card and Ex.X.1 through RW.3, which is a copy of the Register showing the list of ration card holders. Holding that the judgment debtor admitted that he is a tailor by profession, that he is not an agricultural labourer and that consequently he is not entitled to the benefits u/s.60 CPC, the execution Court overrulled the objections raised by the judgment debtor and ordered for the sale of the EP schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is laid.

4. The EP schedule shows that the petition schedule property is a residential house. Sri K. Chidambram, learned counsel for the judgment debtor/revision petitioner drew my attention to Section 60 (1)(c) CPC contemplating that houses and other buildings belonging to an agriculturist or a labourer or a domestic servant and occupied by him are exempt from attachment and sale in execution of a decree. Section 60(1)(C) envisages two conditions, viz., the houses or other buildings must be belonging to an agriculturist, a labourer whether agricultural labourer or otherwise, or a domestic servant. This is the first condition. The second condition is that such an agriculturist, labourer or domestic servant, as the case may be, must have occupied the same. It may also be noticed that the Code of Civil Procedure used the word ‘occupied’, but has not used the phrase ‘is residing or has been residing’. It would appear that the intention of the codifiers is that as long as the person is in occupation of a premises whether he has been residing there or otherwise, the property falls within the mischief of Section 60 (1)(c) CPC. Evidently, there is a distinction between the residence and occupation. Residence, in fact, is only one mode of occupation. So long as the agriculturist or labourer or the domestic servant is in occupation of a premises owned by him, such houses or buildings stand exempted by Section 60 CPC. This is the basic aspect on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has been relying upon.

5. Sri C. Ganesh Singh, learned counsel representing the decree holder submitted that the whole decretal amount is for less than Rs.20,000/-, that the judgment debtor, in fact, has deposited 50% of the decretal amount when conditional stay was granted in the present revision, that the decree holder has already withdrawn the same and that the amount due is about Rs.10,000/- only. His claim is that the judgment debtor is not an agriculturist, that the property is not a