JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This is an Execution First Appeal by a judgment-debtor. The respondent-decree-holder attached a house and agricultural land belonging to the appellant. The appellant filed an objection under Sec. 47, C.P.C. claiming exemption of the land and the house from attachment and sale in execution of the decree against him. The learned Civil Judge, Bulandshahr partly allowed the objection. It was ordered that the house, except three rooms in the occupation of a co-operative Society, should be released from attachment. The judgment-debtor, therefore, appeals. 2. The first point raised on behalf for the appellant is that Bhumidhari is also exempted from attachment and sale. There is no such provision either in U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 or in the Code of Civil Procedure. According to Sec. 152 of Act I of 1951, the interest of a Bhumidhar shall be transferable. If the interest of a Bhumidhar can be the subject of a voluntary sale, there is no reason why it should not be sold in execution of a decree. The learned Civil Judge was right in holding that the Bhumidhari land is liable to attachment. 3. The next question for consideration is whether the entire house in dispute is exempted from attachment and sale. The learned Civil Judge has found that the objector is an agriculturist, and that the house except three rooms in the possession of the Co-operative Society is in the actual occupation of the objector. 4. These findings have not been disputed before me. The question remains whether on these facts the entire house or only a portion of the house ought to be exempted from attachment and sale. 5. Mr. R.K. Kakkar for the decree-holder relied upon Attar Singh v. Bhagwan Das, II Indian Cases 983, where it was held that occupation means lived in by or used for agricultural purposes. Consequently an unused Khurli is liable to attachment in execution of a decree. 6. In Rallia Ram v. Mst. Hayat Bibi, A.I.R. 1927 Lahore 66, it was held that, in order to establish an exemption under Sec. 60(3) it must be found that the house is owned by an agriculturist, and that it is occupied by him as such. In other words, the house is used by the judgment-debtor for purposes which are necessary for the cultivation of his land. 7. In other words, the house is used by the judgment-debtor for purposes which are necessary for the cultivation of his land. 7. Neither of these two cases deals with the situation where a portion of the house of an agriculturist is occupied by him personally, and another portion is let out to a tenant. How-far the agriculturist is entitled to exemption has to be decided on the language of Sec. 60, C. P. C. 8. The matter under discussion fails under Cl. (c) of the proviso to Sec. 60, C. P. C., Cl. (c) is: "houses and other buildings (with the materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to an agriculturists and occupied by him;" 9. In order to get the benefit under Cl. (c), a judgment-debtor has to establish two points: (i) the house belongs to an agriculturist, and (ii) the house is occupied by him. In the present case there is no dispute about the first element. The house II Indian Cases 983 2 A. I. R. 1927 Lahore 66 in dispute does belong to an agriculturist. The question is whether the house is occupied by him. 10. The appellant relies on the fact that a portion of the house is occupied by him personally. On the other hand, the decree-holder relies on the fact that three rooms in the house are in the occupation of a tenant. The test to be applied under Cl. (c) is whether the house is occupied by an agriculturist. If the house or a portion of the house is occupied by an agriculturist personally, it can be said that the house is occupied by him. It would not make much difference if a portion of the house is in the occupation of a tenant. Even in such a situation it can be said that the house is occupied by an agriculturist. So the judgment-debtor is entitled to the benefit of Cl. (c) of the proviso to Sec. 60, C. P. C. Cl. (c) does not contemplate division of a house, a portion to be exempted and a portion to be attached. Either the house is liable to attachment, or it is exempted. On the facts of the present case, it is possible to say that the house in dispute was occupied by the judgment-debtor, who is an agriculturist. (c) does not contemplate division of a house, a portion to be exempted and a portion to be attached. Either the house is liable to attachment, or it is exempted. On the facts of the present case, it is possible to say that the house in dispute was occupied by the judgment-debtor, who is an agriculturist. Consequently, the entire house is exempt from attachment and sale under Cl. (c) of the proviso to Sec. 60, C. P. C. 11. The appeal is partly allowed. The entire house in dispute shall be released from attachment. Parties shall bear their own costs in appeal. The stay order dated 29-7-1964 is vacated. Appeal partly allowed.