Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The question of law raised in this appeal depends for its solution upon the true construction of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 178 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Sub-section (2) provides that in all cases of suits for the ejectment of a non-occupancy ryot for non-payment of arrears of rent or for the cancelment of a lease for non-payment of arrears of rent, the decree shall specify the amount of the arrears and if such amount together with interest and costs of the suit be paid into Court within thirty days from the date of the final decree, the decree shall not be executed. Sub-section (3) provides that the Deputy Commissioner may, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the period of thirty days mentioned in Sub-section (2). The appellants, who were the plaintiffs landlords in the Court below, obtained a decree against the respondents on the 14th May 1909, which was drawn up in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section 178. The tenants made default in the payment of the decretal amount and the result was that on the 29th June 1909, the decree-holders applied for execution by way of ejectment. On the 3rd August following, the judgment-debtors applied for extension of time under Sub-section (3). That application was granted and the decretal amount as directed by the Court was deposited. The amount was subsequently received by the decree-holders under protest. On behalf of the appellants the validity of the order has been challenged on three grounds, namely, first, that the application for extension of time could not be entertained by the Court executing the decree; secondly, that it could not be entertained after the expiry of the time prescribed by the decree for payment of the arrears; in any event it could not be entertained after the application for execution had been made by the decree-holder, and, thirdly, that time was extended by the Court for reasons not sufficient in law.