Tenancy rights as saleable property: rent-control restrictions did not create an absolute bar to attachment in execution.

Tenancy rights and associated goodwill were treated as saleable property capable of attachment and sale in execution because Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 covers property over which the judgment-debtor has a disposing power. The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 did not create an absolute bar: although Section 26 restricts subletting, assignment and transfer of tenancy interest, it does so subject to a contract to the contrary, while Sections 7(15), 25 and 56 recognise transferable or compensable tenancy interests. The rent-control scheme therefore did not prevent attachment of tenancy-related rights.

---

---

Issues: Whether the judgment-debtor's tenancy rights and goodwill in the premises were saleable property liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree, and whether the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 barred such attachment.

Analysis: Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 treats saleable property over which the judgment-debtor has a disposing power as liable to attachment and sale in execution. The tenancy rights of a tenant or sub-tenant fall within that description. Section 26 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 does prohibit subletting, licence, assignment, or transfer of tenancy interest, but the prohibition is not absolute because it is expressly subject to a contract to the contrary. Sections 7(15) and 25 further show that a sub-tenant may be treated as a tenant for purposes of the Act. Section 56 also recognizes lawful consideration for relinquishment, transfer, or assignment of tenancy and therefore reinforces the view that tenancy rights have transferable value. The prior Division Bench ruling on comparable rent-control provisions supported the conclusion that such rights are attachable, and the later decision relied upon by the applicant did not assist because it did not set aside the attachment.

Conclusion: The tenancy rights, and the associated goodwill, were liable to attachment and sale in execution, and the rent-control provisions did not create an absolute bar. The objection to the attachment failed.

Final Conclusion: The Chamber Summons challenging the attachment was rejected, and the attachment of the judgment-debtor's tenancy-related rights was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Tenancy rights are saleable property within Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and a rent-control provision that prohibits transfer only subject to a contract to the contrary does not impose an absolute bar against attachment in execution.

---