JUDGMENT Jenkins, C.J. - In our opinion the decree of the lower Appellate Court must be confirmed. The point turns upon the effect of sec. 169, cl. (c) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, in view of the alteration in the law occasioned by sec. 65 of the new CPC as to the date of the vesting of property sold in execution. The scope of cl. (c) is limited to the rent that may have fallen due to the decree-holder in respect of the tenure or holding, between the dates mentioned. It must have fallen due from some person and that person must, I think, be the judgment-debtor. But as a consequence of the alteration occasioned by sec. 65, the judgment-debtor is not liable for rent beyond the time when the property is sold and the liability of the proceeds under cl. (c) must be similarly limited, so as to correspond with this. This view does not involve any inconsistency in the law or any conflict with the express words of cl. (c). All that it involves is that it is no longer necessary to carry matters up to the more extended margin of time permitted by that clause. For these reasons, the decree must be confirmed. There will be no order as to costs as there is no appearance on the part of the Respondent.