Section 5b of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, which was introduced with retrospective effect on 1st June 1954, impliedly repealed Section 168a of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which barred the execution of rent decrees by attachment and sale of movable properties.

( 1 ) THE only question of law raised in this appeal is whether Section 168a of the Bengal Tenancy Act is a bar to the execution of the rent decree which the decree-holders respondents have obtained against the appellants and some other persons, by attachment and sale of the movable properties of the appellants and not of the defaulting tenure.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are not disputed and they may be briefly stated thus. The respondents obtained a rent decree, on the 5th July, 1954 against the appellants and some other persons for a sum of Rs. 3,295-7-9 pies, inclusive of claim and costs. This decree was obtained on account of arrears of rent in respect of a tenure, which the appellants and their co-sharers held under the decree-holders respondents. The decree was put to execution on the 23rd August, 1954. Upon an application made by the judgment-debtors, on the 12th November, 1954, for stay of proceedings, the execution proceedings were stayed under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. This stay order was vacated on the 25th June, 1955. In the meantime the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act of 1953 had come into full operation with the result that the defaulting tenure vested in the State on the 15th April, 1955. Thereafter the decree-holder made a prayer for being permitted to proceed against the movable properties of the judgment-debtors. This prayer was allowed, and the decree-holders were permitted to proceed against the movable properties of the appellants and other judgment-debtors.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER thren separate objections were filed by different sets of judgment-debtors--the tenor of which was practically the same, namely, that the term of the tenure held by the judgment-debtors had not expired, but the tenure had simply been converted into condensation money by reason of its vesting in the State, and so the decree-holders could realise their decretal dues only from out of the compensation money payable by the State and not by attachment and sale of other properties of the juddment-debtors. It was contended that Section 168a of the Bengal Tenancv Act would stand in the way of the decree-holders. All these objections were overruled by the two Courts below, and the two appellants of this appeal who had filed miscellaneous case No. 224 of 1955 in the executing Court have come up to this Court in Second Appeal.

( 4 ) MR. Bhattacharjyya, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that in view of some earlier decisions of this Court, which have not been reported as yet, he could no longer maintain the proposition that the term of a tenure does not expire, otherwise than by surrender, by reason of the vesting of the tenure in the State under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. We may refer only to one of such unreported cases, viz. , the case of Ahidhar Ghose v. Sm. Nisubala Devi. A. F. O. O. No. 170 of 1956, D/- 19-11-1957. It has been held in that case that after a tenure vests in the State under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, the decree-holder is entitled to proceed against other properties of the ex-tenant, and the bar of Section 168a of the Bengal Tenancy Act would not apply to such a case. We respectfully agree with this decision.

( 5 ) MR. Bhattacharjyya, however, raised a mew point in this Court on behalf of the appellants. His contention was that in order that a decree-holder might be entitled to proceed against other properties of the judgment-debtors in execution of a rent decree, the tenure or tenancy must expire before an application is made for execution of the decree as has been laid down in the proviso to Section 168a (1) (a) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In order to appreciate if there is any substance in this contention of Mr. Bhuttacharjyya it is necessary to quote the whole of Sub-section (1) (a) of Section 168a with the proviso. It runs in the following terms :"168a (1) Notwithstandin