The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, specifically regarding the requirements for sale proclamation, publication, and service of concise statement to the judgment-debtor.

JUDGMENT

Biswas, J. - This is a Rule obtained by one out of three judgment-debtors against whom Opposite Party No. 1 obtained a rent decree, and is directed against an appellate order by which the Petitioner's application for setting aside the sale held in execution of the decree was rejected. The Court of first instance had allowed the application, but that order was reversed on appeal. The application was made on the usual grounds of suppression of sale processes. The decree under execution being a rent decree, the proceedings were governed by the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Sec. 163, sub-sec. (1) of this Act requires that where the Court admits the application for execution, it shall issue a combined order of attachment and proclamation in the prescribed form. Sub-sec. (2) of that section sets out the particulars which must be specified in the sale proclamation. Sub-sec. (3) then lays down certain specific nodes of publication of the sale proclamation. It may be pointed out that sub-sec. (3) was introduced for the first time by the bengal Tenancy Amendment Act of 1928, By that amending Act the use of a single form for the order of attachment and the proclamation of sale was also introduced, the object being to simplify the procedure for execution of rent decrees. Sub-sec. (5) specifically provides for three methods of publishing the sale proclamation in cls. (a), (b) and (c), cl. (d) authorising publication " in such other manner as may be prescribed." It was the Petitioner's case that the requirements of none of the first three clauses of sub-sec. (5) had been complied with. There was no beat of drum on or near the land comprised in the holding in default and no fixing up of a copy of the sale proclamation on such land as required by cl. (a). Neither was there any copy affixed in the Court house as required by cl. (b). There had also been failure or omission to send to the judgment-debtor by registered post a concise statement of the order of attachment and proclamation as required by cl. (c). The learned Munsif found against the Petitioner so far as publication of the sale proclamation in accordance with cls. (a) and (b) was concerned. As regards service of the concise statement by registered post under cl. (c), he found that it had been duly sent by registered post but that it had not been received by the Petitioner. The learned Munsif took the view that cl. (c) requires not only that the decree-holder must send the concise statement by registered post, but also ensure that it is actually received by the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor's case was that the concise statement had been sent to Rajapur, whereas he had been residing in another village, Sonakhali, thirty-six miles from Rajapur. No formal proof had been given in the case of the despatch of the concise statement, but the document itself which was transmitted by post is on the record and it bears, on the face of it, an endorsement " left." There is no evidence by whom or in what circumstances this endorsement was made, but the learned Munsif read it in the light of the evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioner and held that it meant that the Petitioner had left the place to which the concise statement was directed. The learned Munsif was of opinion that in these circumstances the requirements of cl. (c) of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 163 could not be said to have been complied with, and as this was a material irregularity and it caused substantial injury to the Petitioner, as was evidenced by the inadequate price which was fetched at the sale, he set aside the sale under sec. 174 (3).

2. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge took a different view. He definitely refused to accept the Petitioner's case that at the material time he had been residing at Sonakuali. On the other hand, he found that this story that the Petitioner had ceased to reside at Rajapur and had settled at Sonakhali was false and had been invented for the purpose of the application. Upo