Judgment Narasimham, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash the order of the sole member tribunal constituted under Sec.18 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 , allowing the Appeal from the judgment of the claims officer, Tirhut Division. 2. The petitioner is the mortgagee (Zarpeshgi lease) the mortgage having been executed on the 30th June, 1930 by respondent No. 1, his father and grandfather, mortgaging the estate known as Madhuban Estate for a sum of Rs. 17,00,000. The mortgagee was put in possession of the estate and the annual income of the estate was said to be about Rs. 2,00,000 and odd. The estate vested in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act on the 14th November, 1951. The mortgagee then applied under Sec.14 of that Act for the determination of the amount due to him out of the total compensation payable to the proprietors of the estate. In that application he gave a statement showing the rents and profits realised from the estate till the date of vesting. The learned Claims Officer held that the net profit realised by the mortgagee from the mortgaged property from the date of the mortgage till the date of vesting was Rs. 23,30,103-15-6.1/2. He calculated interest at 5 per cent on the principal (Rs. 17,00,000) and found that it came to Rs. 21,80,250. Deducting this sum from the total net profits he found that a sum of Rs. 1,49,853-15-6.1/2 was excess realisation by way of interest by the mortgagee, which under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Sec.16 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act should be deducted from the principal. Deducting this sum he arrived at the net figures Rs. 15,50,146-0-5.1/2 as the amount of the principal legally and justly payable to the applicant. He further held that the applicant was not entitled to any further interest as he had already realised profits by way of interest to the extent of more than the amount of the principal. For this limited purpose he applied the provisions of Clauses (c) and (d) of Sub-section (2) of Sec.16 of the Act. 3. The learned sole member tribunal on appeal, however, construed the four clauses of Sub-section (2) of Sec.16 differently. For this limited purpose he applied the provisions of Clauses (c) and (d) of Sub-section (2) of Sec.16 of the Act. 3. The learned sole member tribunal on appeal, however, construed the four clauses of Sub-section (2) of Sec.16 differently. He held that under no circumstance was the mortgagee entitled to appropriate towards interest any sum in excess of the principal. Hence he thought that that portion of the net profits which was above Rs. 17,00,000 must be completely appropriated towards deduction from the principal. He, however, made a slight error in assuming that the total net profit was only Rs. 21,80,250 and made the calculations accordingly. Deducting Rs. 17,00,000 from the said sum he arrived at the figures Rs. 4,80,250 as the excess realisation of interest, and deducting that sum from the principal, namely, Rs. 17,00,000 he held that Rs. 12,19,750 was payable to the mortgagee. A review petition was filed before him for correction of this error in estimating the total net profits and that was numbered as Case No. 1 of 1962, which is said to be still pending. This need not, however, affect the disposal of this writ petition because the main question of law which is to be decided is whether on a construction of the four clauses of Sub-section (2) of Sec.16 of the Act the Claims Officers view was correct, or else, whether, the view taken by the sole member tribunal was correct. 4. Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, who appeared for the mortgagee petitioner, urged that the learned member, claims Tribunal, has committed an obvious error of law in construing the various clauses of Sub-section (2) of Sec.16 of the Act. 4. Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, who appeared for the mortgagee petitioner, urged that the learned member, claims Tribunal, has committed an obvious error of law in construing the various clauses of Sub-section (2) of Sec.16 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Sec.16 may be quoted now: "(2) In determining the principal amount and interest under Sub-section (1), the claims officer shall proceed in the following manner: (a) he shall ascertain the amount of the principal originally advanced in each case, irrespective of the closing of accounts, execution of fresh bonds, of decree or order of a court; (b) he shall ascertain the amount of the interest already paid or realised and shall set off towards the amount of the principal any amount paid or realised as simple interest in excess of six per cent per annum or the stipulated rate of interest, whichever is lower; (c) he shall separately specify the amount of the principal and the amount of the interest, if any, due to the creditor, such interest being calculated at the rate mentioned in Clause (b) and being limited to the amount of the principal originally advanced; (d) if he finds that in any case the creditor has received or realised by way of interest an amount equal to or more than the amount of the principal, he shall not allow any further interest to run on such principal. Explanation--In the case of a usufructuary mortgage, zarpeshgi lease or a satua pataua lease of an estate or tenure or in the case of possession of such estate or tenure or part thereof by a widow in lieu of her dower debt, the net amount of rents and profits accruing from such estate or tenure shall be deemed to be the interest for the purposes of section. (e) In other cases, the amount of the principal ascertained to be due to the claimant shall carry interest at the rate of three per cent per annum or such other rate not exceeding six per cent per annum as may be prescribed by the State Government. (f) No future interest shall run on any interest ascertained to be due to a creditor." There is no difficulty in construing Clause (a). Similarly, Clause (b) also is quite clear. (f) No future interest shall run on any interest ascertained to be due to a creditor." There is no difficulty in construing Clause (a). Similarly, Clause (b) also is quite clear. The amount of interest already paid or realised should first be ascertained and the amount paid or realised in excess of 6 per cent per annum or the stipulated rate of interest whichever is lower, should be set off by deduction from the principal. Clause (c) however, says that the claims officer shall separately specify the principal and the amount of interest, if any, the interest being calculated at the rate mentioned in Clause (b) but being limited to the amount of the principal originally advanced. This clause, however, does not say as to what should be done by the claims officer if the amount realised as interest is in excess of the amount of the principal. Should that excess be utilised in full by being deducted from the principal, or else, should that excess also be controlled by the provisions of Clause (b) namely, the interest at 6 per cent per annum should first be calculated and the excess interest above that rate alone should be set off towards reduction of the principal? Clause (d) does not clarify the matter further, because it merely says that if the claims officer finds that the creditor has realised by way of interest an amount equal to or more than the amount of the principal, he shall not allow any further interest to run on the principal. In other words if the interest realised is in excess of the principal, the claims officer will not permit any further amount as interest. But this also does not say how the excess actually realised as interest above the amount of the principal should be adjusted. The explanation says that, in the case of a usufructuary mortgage, the net amount of rents and profits shall be deemed to be the interest for the purpose of the section. 5 The claims officer took the view that inasmuch as Clause (b) alone expressly authorises the deduction from the principal of that portion of the amount realised as interest which is in excess of 6 per cent per annum, that excess alone can be deducted from the principal and not the entire sum realised as interest above the amount of the principal. The learned Member of the Board, however, held that the cumulative effect of reading all the clauses of Sub-section (2) of Sec.16 was the same as would follow from the Executive Instructions Nos. 22 and 23 and Rule 11 made under the Chota-nagpur Encumbered Estates Act and held that the entire sum realised as interest in excess of the original principal must be deducted from the principal. 6. In my opinion, it will not be safe to construe the various clauses of Sub-section (2) of Sec.16 of the Act in the light of the instructions issued under Rule 11 of the Rules made under the Chotanagpur Encumbered Estates Act. There seems to be really no ambiguity in construing the various clauses of Sub-section (2) of Sec.16. Clauses (c) and (d) only say that the Claims Officer shall first calculate the amount of the interest due on the principal and if it is found to be in excess of the amount of the principal he shall not show as interest any sum in excess of the principal and also shall not allow any further interest to run on the principal. But these two clauses do not give authority to the claims officer to appropriate the excess towards the deduction of the principal itself. That power is only conferred by Clause (b), and that clause expressly says that the interest shall first be calculated either at 6 per cent per annum or the stipulated rate of interest, whichever is lower, and any sum realised as interest in excess of this amount so calculated alone shall be set off towards reduction of the amount of the principal. It will not, therefore, be proper to imply an additional power to set off from Clauses (c) and (d) which in express terms are restricted to the amount permissible as interest only. 7. In this connection it will be relevant to consider the corresponding provisions of the Bihar Money Lenders (Regulation of Transactions) Act. That Act was specially passed by the Legislature for the benefit of debtors. Section 7 of that Act prohibits any court from passing a decree for an interest in excess of the principal originally advanced. This will correspond to Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Sec.16 of the Act. Section 8 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act (Regulation of Transactions) Act confers power on the court to re-open transactions and make adjustments. Section 7 of that Act prohibits any court from passing a decree for an interest in excess of the principal originally advanced. This will correspond to Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Sec.16 of the Act. Section 8 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act (Regulation of Transactions) Act confers power on the court to re-open transactions and make adjustments. But the proviso to that section expressly says that, if interest has been realised in excess of the prescribed rate, the creditor shall not be required to pay any amount so paid or allowed in excess, or to reduce the amount of the principal of the loan. Thus, under the Money Lenders Act the debtor cannot ask for a set off of the excess amount realised as interest by deduction from the principal. That power is given to a limited extent by Clause (b) of Sec.16(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, and in the absence of a clear provision it cannot be extended beyond the term of that clause. It is difficult to believe that the Legislature wanted to give more benefit to the debtor under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act than was available to him under the Bihar Money Lenders Act, except, to the limited extent permitted by Clause (b). 8. The petition is allowed, the judgment of the sole member of the Board is quashed and the judgment of the Claims Officer fixing the claim of the mortgagee at Rs. 15,50,146 and odd is restored. The petitioner is entitled to costs. Hearing fee Rs. 100. S.N.P.Singh, J. 9 I agree.