JUDGMENT 1. In execution of a decree the occupancy holding of a tenant, being attached and lotted for sale, the judgment-debtors objected to such sale, because, as they alleged, they had no saleable interest therein. The Munsif allowed this objection, but the District Judge has disallowed it. Hence this appeal by the judgment-debtors. 2. It seems to have been admitted in the Court of first instance that the holding in question is not transferable according to custom or usage, but the consent of the landlord was duly obtained before the property was notified for sale ; and the question that was raised in the Courts below, and which has been raised in this appeal is whether such consent makes the holding saleable, or, in other words, whether the sale if held with the consent of the landlord would be effectual. There can be no doubt as explained in the case of Nurendra Narain Roy v. Ishan Chandra Sen 22 W. R. 22 (1874) that an occupancy right is a personal right in the tenant--a right which he is not entitled to transfer by sale to anybody else, unless such transfer is allowable by custom or usage. And it has been held that an occupancy right is not saleable in execution of a money-decree (See Bhuram Ali Sheikh v. Gopi Kanth Saha 1 C. W. N. 396 : s. c. I. L. R. 24 Cal. 355 (1897) and Durga Charan v. Kali Prasanna 3 C. W. N. 586 : s. c. I. L. R. 26 Cal. 727 (1899). But then the Legislature has declared in the Bengal Tenancy Act that such a holding may be brought to sale in execution of a decree for rent obtained by the landlord, that is to say, the whole body of landlords; and it has always been understood that if a raiyat sells his holding with the consent of his landlord, the sale becomes effectual. As explained in the case of Palakdhari Rai v. Manners I. L. R. 23 Cal. 179 (1895) the only person concerned in the transfer of a tenant's holding is naturally the landlord. If he consents to the transfer made by the tenant, there is an end of the matter. As explained in the case of Palakdhari Rai v. Manners I. L. R. 23 Cal. 179 (1895) the only person concerned in the transfer of a tenant's holding is naturally the landlord. If he consents to the transfer made by the tenant, there is an end of the matter. But the question that arises in this case is whether in the case of an involuntary sale at the instance of a third party, a creditor, and to which the landlord consents, it is open to the tenant to object upon the ground that he has no saleable interest in the holding. It could not rightly be said that an occupancy right is absolutely unsaleable : it is saleable in one or other of the circumstances already mentioned and it seems to us that in principle there is no difference between the case of voluntary sale made by the raiyat, and an involuntary sale held by the Court, if such sale is consented to by the landlord. In this view, we are supported by the observations of a Divisional Bench of this Court in the case of Dwarka Nath Misser v. Hurrish Chunder I. L. R. 4 Cal. 925 (1879) the particular passage we have in view being in page 928. The tenants in this case are the judgment-debtors : they are bound to pay their debt; and if the landlord, who is the only other party interested in impugning the validity of the sale of the holding in the occupancy of the tenant, consents to it, we do not see why it should be open to the tenant to object to the sale. For these reasons, we think that the order of the Court below is right, and we accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs. Hearing fee 2 gold mohurs.