The vesting of an estate under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, did not extinguish the liability of an under tenure-holder to pay rent to the tenure-holder, and the tenure-holder could recover the arrears of rent by execution against the other properties of the under tenure-holder.

( 1 ) A single question calls for decision in this appeal.

( 2 ) THE question is short but somewhat intriguing and of some abiding importance and it may arise and, as a matter of fact, it has actually arisen in a number of cases.

( 3 ) THE point is how the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (W. B. Act I of 1954) affects the relationship between an intermediary (a quondum tenure-holder) and his quondum under tenure-holder in the matter of realisation of rents or to be more precise, realisation of his decretal dues for rent by execution.

( 4 ) THE respondent was a tenure-holder and the appellant the holder of a subordinate tenure under her. For arrears of rent, the respondent obtained a decree against the appellant in Rent Suit No. 1 of 1954 of the 8th Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore. That was as far back as December 20, 1954. In the meantime, the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (W. B. Act 1 of 1954) had come into force on February 12, 1954, and the vesting of the estate concerned and all interests therein (including the respondent's tenure and the appellant's subordinate tenure) had taken place on April 15, 1955. The decree, on transfer, was put into execution in Rent Execution Case No. 2 of 1955 of the 4th Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore. The application for execution was filed on September 5, 1955, and, in it, the drcree-holder prayed for realisation of the decretal dues by attachment and sale of an item of immovable property (dwelling house) of the judgment-debtor to be followed, if necessary, by attachment and sale of his moveables. In a supplementary application, filed by the decree-holder in pursuance of the Court's order, in support of her above prayer, she stated that, as the defaulting tenure had vested in the State under the aforesaid Act on and from April 15, 1955, it had ceased to exist and had no existence and as, therefore, thd decree under execution could not be executed against the same, the decretal dues could be realised from the other properties, both moveable and immoveable, of the judgment-debtor.

( 5 ) TO the decree-holder's above prayer the judgment debtor filed an objection. In his petition of objection which was filed on December 20, 1955, the judgment-debtor pleaded, inter alia, as follows: (i) that Section 168a of the Bengal Tenancy Act was a bar to the decree-holder's prayer for execution; (ii) that the execution as prayed for was barred under Section 8 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act; and (iii) that the decree-holder's only remedy was to proceed against the compensation money that would be awarded to the Judgment-debtor by the Government under the aforesaid Act or the defaulting tenure.

( 6 ) THE judgment-debtor's objections were overruled by the learned Subordinate Judge and his application under Section 47, C. P. C. , was dismissed. Against the said dismissal the judgment-debtor has come up on appeal to this Court.

( 7 ) ON behalf of the appellant judgment-debtor the three arguments which are set out above have been repeated in this Court in support of his contention that the decree-holder cannot proceed against his moveable and immoveable properties as prayed for by her. That contention, in the light of the said arguments, really involves consideration of the effect of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act on the rights of the parties in the matter of realisation of rent, or what is more to the point, realisation of decretal dues for rent by execution.

( 8 ) WE shall take up the appellant's arguments seriatim in the order in which they have been presented above.

( 9 ) ON Section 168a of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the appellant argued that the proviso to Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of the Section, on which the respondent relied to avoid the statutory bar, had no application as "the term of the tenancy" had not expired within the meaning of the said proviso. The argument was put under two heads : (i) that the proviso coul