JUDGMENT R.C. Mitter, J. - The holding which is the subject-matter of these proceedings belonged originally to one Punja Sheik. It is an occupancy holding. On the death of Punja it devolved upon his son Ashutulla, and on his widow Sampati Bewa; the widow having inherited a small share therein, namely, one-eighth. Sampati made a gift of her share in the holding to Kasarali on 13th January, 1929. The Opposite Party before me, Azimuddin Mondal purchased the said share from Kasarali on 21st March, 1935. In as much as the gift by Sampati to Kasarali was before the recent amendment of the Bengal Tenancy Act came into force, and in as much as the holding was a non-transferable occupancy holding. Kasarali was not recognised by the landlord as having acquired any interest. The landlord was entitled to ignore Kasarali. The landlord, however, obtained a decree against the recorded tenants and in execution of that decree the holding was sold on 7th March, 1935 and purchased by a stranger-the Petitioner before me. Within a month of that sale the Opposite Party Azimuddin deposited the decretal amount and the compensation payable to the auction-purchaser under the provisions of sec. 174 (1) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The auction-purchaser resisted his claim to make the deposit under that section. The first Court held that Opposite Party No. 1 had no locus standi to make that deposit, but the lower Appellate Court has held otherwise. The auction-purchase makes an application to this Court and contends that the Opposite Party No. 1 had no locus standi to make the deposit under sec. 174 (1) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. He places his contention on two grounds, firstly, that the purchaser of a portion of a non-transferable occupancy holding, the purchase being effected before the amendment of the Bengal Tenancy Act came into force, has no right to make a deposit. I cannot agree with this contention, for the matter has been settled by a series of decisions of this Court interpreting the words " whose interests have been affected by the sale " which occur in Or. 21, r. 90 of the Code. The same words are in sec. 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. There cannot be any doubt, having regard to the decision of the Full Bench case of Dayamayi v. Annada Mohan I L. R. 42 Cal. 21, r. 90 of the Code. The same words are in sec. 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. There cannot be any doubt, having regard to the decision of the Full Bench case of Dayamayi v. Annada Mohan I L. R. 42 Cal. 172 : s. c. 18 C. W. N. 971 (F. B.) (1914) as explained in the case of Chandra Binode v. Ala Bux I. L. R. 48 Cal. 148 : s c. 24 C, W. N. 818 (Spl. B.) (1920) (Special Bench), that a purchaser of a non-transferable occupancy holding, whether the holding was transferred entirely or in part, has an interest in the holding. His interest is affected by the rent sale, because being the unrecognised purchaser of the holding, the landlord is not bound to make him a party to the rent suit. The decree in the rent suit against the recorded tenants would be an effective decree, so far as the holding is concerned, and if the holding is sold, such an unrecognised purchaser would lose by the said sale all his interest in this holding. It is on these principles that the purchaser of a non-transferable holding is a person whose interest is affected by the rent sale and So he can apply under Or. 21, r. 90 of the Code. I do not see wiry those decisions should not be followed in a case arising out of sec. 174 (1), having regard to the fact that the words are the same. For these reasons, I overrule the broad contention urged before me. 2. The second ground on which the order of the learned Judge is attacked that the Opposite Party No. 1 had no standi at all, because he had acquired an interest in the property after the rent sale. It has been laid down that in order that a person may make an application either under sec. 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act or Or. 21, r. 90 of the Code he must acquire an interest which is affected by the rent sale before the challenged sale. But that does not dispose of the case before me. Here the Opposite Party No. 1 is claiming under the interest which had been created in favour of Kasarali in 1929 long before the rent sale, the interest by reason of which the Opposite Party No. 1 is coming before the Court. But that does not dispose of the case before me. Here the Opposite Party No. 1 is claiming under the interest which had been created in favour of Kasarali in 1929 long before the rent sale, the interest by reason of which the Opposite Party No. 1 is coming before the Court. That interest has only devolved on him in March, 1935. I do not see how, on these facts, he would not have a right to apply under sec. 174 (1) of the Act. 3. I, accordingly, hold that Opposite Party No. 1 had the locus standi to make the application, in as much as the interest, by virtue of which he is making the application, was an interest which was created before the rent sale. In this view of the matter I confirm the order passed by the lower Appellate Court and discharge this Rule with costs one gold mohur.