JUDGMENT R.C. Mitter, J. - This Rule has been obtained on behalf of the auction-purchaser who is a third party. A person obtained a decree for money, but in the proclamation for sale he did not mention what was the interest of the judgment-debtor. In the sale proclamation there was no mention of the fact that the property which was being put up to sale was an occupancy holding. After the sale, the learned Munsif required the auction-purchaser to deposit the landlord's transfer fee according to the rate provided for in sec. 26E of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The auction-purchaser stated that inasmuch as the property of the judgment-debtor had not been specified in the sale proclamation as an occupancy holding, he was not prepared to pay that amount. His case was that the property put up to sale was really a mokarari holding. The learned Munsif did not go into the question as to whether the interest was a mokarari interest or not. He said that it was the practice in his Court that if the nature of the interest is not specified in the sale proclamation, the interest is treated as an occupancy holding. I do not find any justification for such a practice. Either the matter has to be investigated in such a case or not, but where the sale proclamation is blank in this respect, the learned Munsif is not justified in relying upon what he has set up as a practice for which there is no justification in law and to treat such a holding as an occupancy holding. The order is, therefore, vacated and the learned Munsif is required to confirm the sale without requiring the, auction-purchaser to deposit the money in pursuance of sec. 26E of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The auction-purchaser was not at all responsible for the omission in the sale proclamation and he cannot be penalised for an act which is not of his own creation. The landlord's fee is to be deposited on the basis that the tenancy is a mokarari tenure. 2. I do not see the necessity of an investigation in this case as to the status of the judgment-debtor on the ground that the landlord is not a party and an investigation would be a fruitless one. The landlord's fee is to be deposited on the basis that the tenancy is a mokarari tenure. 2. I do not see the necessity of an investigation in this case as to the status of the judgment-debtor on the ground that the landlord is not a party and an investigation would be a fruitless one. The Rule is accordingly made absolute but as there is no appearance on behalf of the Opposite Party, there will be no order for costs in this Rule.