1. This is a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside and the petitioner permitted to pay the amount of the rent decree into Court. The petitioner alleged that he had purchased the holding at a sale in execution of a rent-decree. Subsequent to that, the landlord opposite party brought a suit for rent against the original tenants and obtained a decree. Thereupon, the petitioner applied to deposit the decretal amount into Court under the terms of Section 170 (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Court below has found that the' present applicant was not a party to the rent suit and that the rent-decree was not passed against him and has accordingly refused the petitioner's application. Of course, the petitioner does not come under the purview of Section 170 (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. If his story is true that he has got an interest, it is not an interest voidable on the sale because the sale of the judgment-debtor's property will not include the property purchased by the present petitioner. Therefore, if that is right, the applicant does not come under Section 170 (3).
2. The other allegation is that the present applicant is a benamidar. If he is a benamidar he has no interest at all, voidable or otherwise, and has got no right under Section 170 (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act to deposit the money. The present application is wholly misconceived. This Rule, therefore, fails and must be discharged with costs, one gold mohur.