1. The auction-purchaser of a maurasi ryoti holding obtained this Rule in which we are invited to set aside the order of the Munsif allowing the opposite party, Hamid Ali, to make a deposit under Section 310A (now Order XXI, Rule 89) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The deposit having been made, the sale of the holding has been set aside. The question is whether Hamid Ali can be deemed to be entitled to make such a deposit.
2. The facts are that Hamid Ali was the original tenant: Kali Kumar purchased the holding in execution of a rent decree obtained by the landlords against Hamid Ali, and obtained possession of the lands of the holding except the homestead portion which, in spite of the sale, Hamid Ali retained in his possession. Kali Kumar sued Hamid Ali for possession of the homestead. That suit was dismissed for default. Kali Kumar then applied under Section 103 of the old Code of Civil Procedure for a re-hearing. That application was, however, rejected. The result of this litigation between Kali Kumar and Hamid Ali was that Kali Kumar lost his right to the homestead portion and Hamid Ali acquired a right therein. The applicant Janoki Nath has now purchased the entire holding which was, again, sold by the landlords in execution of another rent decree against the new tenant Kali Kumar.
3. No cause has been shown. We understand Hamid Ali is in jail. The judgment-debtor does not appear to contest the matter.
4. It was held, under Section 310A of the former Code, that the purchaser of a portion of an occupancy holding had an interest against the tenant, and, as such, he had an interest which he was entitled to protect, whether it was, or was not, a valid interest against the landlord. See Kunja Behari Mondal v. Sambhu Chandra Roy 8 C.W.N. 232. In this view, and on the facts we have stated, we think the judgment of the Munsif is correct. The Rule is discharged, but without costs.