JUDGMENT Ghose, J. - This is an appeal by the landlord against an order of the Subordinate Judge made under sec. 169, cl. (c) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The landlord obtained a decree for rent, and, in execution of that decree, the tenure of the Defendant was sold and, after payment to the decree-holder of the amounts mentioned in cls. (a) and (b) of sec. 169, there was a balance left in the hands of the Court; and the decree-holder presented an application mentioning therein the amount of rent with interest that was due to him between the date of the institution of the suit and the date of the sale, and prayed that such amount might be paid to him from the surplus sale-proceeds. The judgment-debtor raised no objection to this prayer, on the contrary, he put in a petition practically admitting the justice of the decree-holder's demand, and stating that the amount claimed might be paid to him (the decree-holder); and he prayed that the balance be paid to himself. The Subordinate Judge, "however, thought that the decree-holder was not entitled, having regard to the terms of cl, (c) of sec. 169, to obtain any interest which had accrued upon the rent between the date of suit and that of the sale, and it is against this order disallowing the decree-holder's claim for interest that this appeal has been preferred. We are of opinion that, upon the petition as presented by the judgment-debtor admitting the justice of the Plaintiff's demand, no question of the character that is raised by the Subordinate Judge should have been raised and discussed. And, speaking for myself, I may say that the legislature could never have intended, when using the word 'rent' in sec. 169, cl. (c), to exclude the interest accruing thereupon, and to put the decree-holder under the necessity of bringing a fresh suit for the interest only. But, as we have already stated, upon the application made by the judgment-debtor, no question of this character need and ought to have been raised by the Subordinate Judge, and, indeed, under sec. 169, it is only in the event of the judgment-debtor disputing the decree-holders right to receive the sum, claimed that the Court could be called upon to determine the matter. 169, it is only in the event of the judgment-debtor disputing the decree-holders right to receive the sum, claimed that the Court could be called upon to determine the matter. Here, there was no dispute, we accordingly modify the order of the Court below so as to allow the decree holder the interest claimed.