P L D 1952 Dacca 119 (PLP)

(a) Interpretation of Statutes‑Remedial provision‑Should be construed so as to secure that relief contemplated be not denied to those for whom intended‑‑-Bengal Tenancy Act, (VIII of 7885) S. 168‑A. Section 168‑A is a remedial provision inserted for the benefit of the tenants. In construing a remedial statute the principle to be followed is "the words of a. remedial statute must be construed so far as they reasonably admit so as to secure that the relief contemplated by the statute shall not' be denied to the persons intended to be relieved." Rai Ram Taran Bannerjee Bahadur v. Mrs. D. c

7. Hill and others A I R 1949 F C 135 p. 139 ref. (b) Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885), S. 168‑A (1) proviso‑--Term of tenancy expires" means tenancy must terminate or cease to exist‑Tenancy sold in execution of one decree and purchased by third party‑Held, tenancy was still ire existence, and other property of tenant was not available for attachment or sale in execution of the other decree in respect of the tenancy. The legislature intended that so long as the tenure or hold ing is in existence, the only remedy available to the landlord is limited to the security afforded by the tenancy. The proviso only enacts that if the tenancy expires or ceases to be in existence, the landlord can pursue his remedy, against other movable and immovable properties of the judgment‑debtors. The underlying principle of the proviso to clause (a) of subsection 1, of section 168‑A and the scheme of section 168‑A are to protect the other properties of a tenant from an execution for arrears of rent which the landlord could very well levy against the tenancy in respect of which the default occurred. Simply because the tenancy has passed hands by sale, the proviso will not apply. The proviso contemplates the extinction, termination or cessation of a tenancy by some method which the law regards as valid and legal, and the fact that the Legislature excludes the word "surrender," definitely shows that the efflux of time is not the only mode of extinction of the tenancy, which the Legislature intends. What the Legislature contemplates is that the tenancy must terminate or cease to exist. In that view it is not enough that it has merely changed hands and passed on to some person other than the judgment‑debtors. Where, therefore, there were two decrees for arrears of rent in respect of the same holding for two different periods and in execution of one of them the tenancy was sold and pur chased by a third party, it was held that the other decree could be executed against the tenancy and not against the other property of the tenant. Satish Chandra Hui and others v. Sudhir Krishna Ghosh and another (1942) 46 C W N 540 p. 544; Atul Chandra Chakrararty v. Upendra Narayan Mukhopadhaya (1942) 46 C W N 684; Sudhir Krishna Ghosh v. Satish Chandra Hui (1944) 48 C W N 835 Sp. B. ; Lakshan Chandra Roy Choudhury v. Birendra Kumar Singha (1944) 48 C W N 837 ; Maharaja Srish Chandra Nandi v. rlagdish Lahiri (1949) 53 C W N (I D R) 100 p. 101 ; Amulya Chandra Roy v. Kumar Pashupati Nath Malia (1951) 55 C W N 385 (F B) rel. Bahadur Singh Singhee v. Sanyasi Charan Ghosh (1943) 47 C W N 287; and Rai Harendra Nath Choudhury v. Sakiraddi Gazi (1945) 50 C W N 85 ref. Satis Chandra Chatteriee v. Atul Chandra Chakravarty ,(1948) 52 C W N 625 ; Abdul Manan v. Kumar Madhabi Ranjan Chakravarty (1948) 52 C W N 627 dissent.