JUDGMENT : Burkitt, J.:— The plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, obtained a decree for arrears of rent against her tenants, the respondents, on the 15th of February, 1900. She subsequently made an application under section 35 of the old Rent Act for the ejectment of the tenants on the 21st of January, 1901, and in the succeeding month of April the tenants were ejected. Subsequently, on the 18th of January, 1904 that is more than three years after the date of the decree an application was made for execution of the decree for arrears of rent. This application was refused on the ground that it was time-barred. On appeal to the learned District Judge the decree of the Assistant Collector was affirmed. Hence this appeal. 2. It has been argued by Mr. O'Conor on behalf of the respondents that no appeal lay from the order of the Assistant Collector to the District Judge, and therefore this appeal must fail. He relies upon section 175 and the following sections of the Agra Tenancy Act, No. II of 1901. If this contention be correct, this appeal must fail. Mr. O'Conor, however, further contends that the application made under section 35 of the old Rent Act was not a step in aid of execution of the decree for arrears of rent., and that in any case the application for execution of the decree was barred by limitation. 3. As regards the first point raised by him, he is met by the decision of a Bench of this High Court in the case of Kharag Singh v. Pola Ram : [1904] I.L.R., 27 All., 31. In that case it was held by our brothers BLAIR and BANERJI, JJ., that an appeal does lie to the District Judge from an order of the Assistant Collector of the 1st class, if such order by the force of section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure amounts to a decree. 4. We have serious doubts as to the Correctness of this decision, and if it were necessary to determine the point, we should he disposed to send the case to a Full Bench of the Court. However, having regard to the view which we take of the other point which has been raised by Mr. 4. We have serious doubts as to the Correctness of this decision, and if it were necessary to determine the point, we should he disposed to send the case to a Full Bench of the Court. However, having regard to the view which we take of the other point which has been raised by Mr. O'Conor, we do not think it necessary to have this question at present discussed before a Full Bench. We are clearly of opinion that the application for ejectment made under section 35 was not a step in aid of execution of the decree for arrears of rent. The tight of the landlord to eject the tenant under that section is a right supplemental to the right which he had to recover the arrears of lent. It is optional with him whether he will or will not eject his tenant who neglects to satisfy a decree for arrears of rent passed against him. ??? no way does an order of ejectment help the landlord to recover arrears of rent so decreed, and therefore the application under section 35 cannot be said to be in aid of execution of the decree for such arrears. The decision of the Court's below upon this point appears to us to be correct. 5. For these reasons we dismiss the appeal with costs, including fees in this Court on the higher scale.