( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been placed before us to answer the question :

"whether the liability to pay arrears of rent by a 'debtor' as defined in the Adhi-niyam under a decree of Civil Court or otherwise, is included within the definition of 'debt' as given in the Adhiniyam and whether section 7 (1) (i) of the Adhiniyam would be attracted in suits or execution proceedings instituted to recover such arrears of rent ?"

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this question appear to be that non-applicant decree-holder had obtained a decree against the applicants for ejectment and arrears of rent on 30-11-1974. The applicants had filed an appeal against the judgment in the court of the First Additional District Judge, Indore. The Appellate Court granted a stay so far as the execution of the trial Court's decree for ejectment was concerned. So far as arrears of rent, no stay was granted. The non applicant therefore filed execution against the applicants to execute the money decree. In the executing court an application was made on behalf of the applicants that the liability of the applicants under the money decree based on arrears of rent fell within the ambit of the definition of the word "debt" given in sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Anusuchit Jan Jati Rini sahayata Adhiniyam, 1967 (hereinafter called "the Adhiniyam") and therefore the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The executing court rejected this application holding that the definition of "debt" given in the adhiniyam is not applicable to a decree for arrears of rent. Against this order a revision petition was filed. In the revision petition the decisions in Civil Revn. No. 603 of 1968 (Sadashiv Rao v. Mst. Naina) decided on 18-4-1969;* Civil revn. No. 363 of 1974 (Daryao Bai v. Surajmal) decided on 20-8-1974 (Madh pra): Misc. Petn. No. 16 of 1971 (Punaji v. Moti) decided on 31-10-1973** and misc. Appeal No. 125 of 1971 (Balaram v. Rupabai) decided on 18-10-1973 were cited. Out of these decisions, the decision in Punaji v. Moti (supra) noticed in Balaram v. Rupabai 1973 MPLJ (Notes) 132 (supra) is the only Division bench decision.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the definition of the word "debt" in Section 2 (4) of the Adhiniyam is a very wide definition which is inclusive and therefore within the meaning of the words used in this definition a decree for arrears of rent would fall within the ambit of this definition. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that if the intention of the legislature and the purpose for which this enactment was enacted is seen, arrears of rent cannot be included within the definition of the word "debt". Learned counsel referred to Craies on Statute Law Chapter 8, and contended that the circumstances in which the Adhiniyam was passed have to be considered in order to understand the meaning of the words used in the adhiniyam. He also contended that if "debt" would include arrears of rent, then 'landlord' could not be said to be a creditor and it was contended that the scheme of the Adhiniyam contained in Sections 8 to 14 indicates that "rent" would not fall within the ambit of the definition.

( 4 ) IT could not be disputed that where the meaning of the word used in the statute is plain, then the intention of the Legislature had to be inferred from the meaning of the words used themselves. Craies in his treatise on Statute law in chap. 5 considered the principles where the meaning is plain and in Chapters after Chap. 7 considered the principles for interpretation where the meaning is not plain; and while considering the principles of interpretation where the meaning is not plain, in Chapter 8 the learned author considered the sources of information outside a statute which may be used for throwing light upon its meaning. Apparently, therefore, if the meaning of the words used in the statute is plain, as the learned author states, nothing