The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 65 and Section 146-A of the Bengal Tenancy Act in determining the nature of a rent decree and the rights of co-tenants in a holding.

JUDGMENT

M.C. Ghose, J. - These are two second appeals by the decree-holder in an execution case. The facts in short are that the decree-holder-appellant brought a rent suit in 1934 against 13 persons claiming arrears of rent for the years 1337-1340 B.S. The suit was decreed on 20th July 1934. In November 1935, he applied for execution of the decree. In the execution petition, he impleaded the two principal respondents who were not parties to the decree but who, the decree-holder stated, had purchased portions of the holding in arrears. Thereupon the two principal respondents appeared and filed two separate petitions of objection u/s 47, Civil P.C., and contended that the decree could not be executed against them as they were not parties to the original suit-The objections were allowed by the trial Court. Appeals by the decree-holder to the District Judge were dismissed. Respondent Provash Chandra Mallick purchased a portion of the holding in execution of a mortgage decree against respondent Puran Chandra Patra on 16th September 1932 and obtained a sale certificate on 2nd March 1933. A notice of transfer was posted to the decree-holder in February 1935 from the Collector's office. Respondent Durlav Chandra Bej purchased a portion of the tenure in execution of a mortgage decree against respondent Purna Chandra Patra on 25th May 1934 and the sale was confirmed on 6th July 1934. It does not appear that the sale certificate was obtained by him.

2. The finding of both Courts is that the landlord decree-holder did not know at the time of the suit or at the time of the decree that either of these two men had purchased a portion of the share of the respondent Purna Chandra Patra. The question in the circumstances is whether, as the Court of Appeal below has found, the decree has ceased to be a rent decree and become a money decree. u/s 65, Bengal Tenancy Act, where the tenant is an occupancy raiyat, he shall not be liable to ejectment for arrears of rent but his holding shall be liable to sale in execution of a decree for the rent thereof and the rent shall be a first charge thereon. It was held in many cases that where the landlords consist of more than one person, then all the landlords must sue together to obtain the benefit of this section and where the tenants consist of more than one person, then all the tenants must be impleaded to get the benefit of the section. Further that the relationship must be subsisting at the date of the decree and even at the date of the execution and subsequent sale. In A.H. Forbes v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh AIR 1914 P C 111 their Lordships of the Privy Council held that after the landlord had sold his estate to another and then sued the tenant for arrears of rent for a period previous to the sale and sought to sell the tenure in arrears in execution, Ch. VIII in which S, 65 applies regulates the respective rights of landlords and tenants and action u/s 65 can therefore be taken only when the relationship of landlord and tenant is subsisting between the parties. Indeed, so strict is the rule as to the subsistence of relationship that u/s 148(8) the landlord after a rent decree can bring the tenure or holding to sale, but if he transfers the decree to another parson that person has no such right. The case in A.H. Forbes v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh AIR 1914 P C 111 referred to above was followed by the Special Bench of this Court in Krishna Pada Chatterjee Vs. Sm. Manada Sundari Ghose and Others, AIR 1932 Cal 321 . It has been held by the Special Bench that the landlord who has parted with the interest, even though it be after the rent decree, cannot lawfully bring the tenure or holding to sale in execution of that decree and that such action can only be taken when at the date of the sale the relationship of landlord and tenant subsists.

3. It has been held in many cases that for a decree for arrears of rent being a rent decree, the landlord must sue all the tenants of the tenure except in cases where all the