JUDGMENT

Bennett, J - This is a miscellaneous appeal against an order passed by the District Judge of Hardoi dismissing an appeal against an order passed by an Honorary Assistant Collector of the first class allowing an application for stay of proceedings in a rent suit. The appellant Pandit Mool Chand sued the respondent Lekhraj for arrears of rent in respect of an ex-proprietary holding. Lekhraj applied for stay of proceedings under Section 7, Encumbered Estates Act of 1934, proving that he had made an application under that Act which had been sent to the Special Judge. The application for stay was opposed by the appellant on the ground that Section 7 did not apply to a debt which was due from the applicant under the Act qua tenant. The Honorary Assistant Collector in rejecting this contention and staying the proceedings in his Court referred to the definition of "debt" in the Encumbered Estates Act, and also to Section 16 of that Act which shows that debts under the Oudh Rent Act shall have priority. Reference was also made by him to a certain Government Order of 12th March 1936, which he held had no legal validity. In appeal the learned District Judge observed that he saw no justification for restricting the definition of debt to pecuniary liabilities other than rent. He dismissed the appeal under Order 41, Rule 11. Section 7(1)(a), Encumbered Estates Act, reads:

7(1). When the Collector has passed an order under Section 6 the following consequences shall ensue: (a) all proceedings pending at the date of the said order in any Civil or Revenue Court in the United Provinces in respect of any public or private debt to which the landlord is subject, or with which his immovable property is encumbered, except an appeal or revision against a decree or order, shall be stayed, all attachments and other execution process issued by any such Court and then in force in respect of any such debt shall become null and void, and no fresh process in execution shall, except as hereinafter provided, be issued.

2. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that it was not intended by the Act to give a landlord any relief in respect of debts for which he was liable not qua landlord but qua tenant. He refers to the Preamble to the Act as showing that its object was to provide for the relief of encumbered estates and contends that the emphasis in Clause (a) is on the word "landlord." No doubt Section 16 of the Act provides that debts recoverable under the Qudh Rent Act shall rank first for priority but; he points out, such debts may be due under Section 108(15), Oudh Rent Act, that is due from a landlord to a cosharer as profits. He concedes that he can show no authority in support of this view except the Government Order referred to. Learned Counsel for the respondent at first argued that as the suit in the Revenue Court was brought in respect of an ex-proprietary holding the respondent was entitled to claim that he was a landlord. In my opinion there is no force in this argument: the circumstance that the respondent had formerly been a proprietor of the holding would not confer on him any special privileges of this kind.

3. The respondent's counsel is in my opinion on firmer ground when he contends that there is nothing in the Act which warrants the distinction claimed by the appellant. Section 7 refers to proceedings in respect of any public or private debt to which the landlord is subject, and debt is defined in Section 2(a) as including any pecuniary liability except a liability for unliquidated damages. I have been referred to two rulings of the Allahabad High Court. In Mukand Sarup v. Krishna Chandra Singh AIR 1938 All 86 that High Court held that a suit for mesne profits should not be stayed because mesne profits are unliquidated damages and therefore do not come within the definition of debt. This ruling is therefore of no assistance. In Mukat Bihari Lal v. Manmohan Lal AIR 1938 All 165 the suit was brought against