JUDGMENT S.K Ghose, J. - These two appeals are directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Pabna reversing an order of the Munsif, 2nd Court, Pabna in two rent execution cases under the following circumstances. One Sri Gobinda Chowdhury obtained certain decrees for arrears of rent. Subsequently he gave a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the Appellants. The latter now seek to execute the decrees in execution cases Nos. 257 of 1935 and 279 of 1935 on the basis of the aforesaid usufructuary mortgage bond. The objection of the judgment-debtors Respondents is that there was no legal assignment as required by Or. 21, r. 16 of the CPC and that sec. 148 (o) of the Bengal Tenancy Act is a bar to the execution of the decrees. The learned Judge below, disagreeing with the first Court, has decided the first point in favour of the objectors. On the second point he has agreed with the first Court and decided in favour of the Appellants. In the result, he has dismissed the execution cases. Hence these two appeals. The first point in these appeals is whether there was an assignment of the decrees as required by Or. 21, r. 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That rule requires that the interest of the decree-holder in the decree should be transferred by assignment in writing or by operation of law. The question as to operation of law has not been mooted in these cases. The only point is whether there has been an assignment of the interest of the decree-holder in writing. This depends upon the construction of the following clause in the deed of mortgage, Up to that time, the said property mentioned in the Schedule will continue to be in your possession and under your management. You will be competent to make realisation and collection of rents, in arrear and current, grant jote settlements, realise amounts of decrees and to bring suits for arrears of rent and to do all acts of realisation in the Mehal. The learned Judge below has held that the clause " realise amounts of decrees " does not refer to the two decrees in question. Now, in the first place, there is a provision that the mortgagees will collect rents in arrear and current. The learned Judge below has held that the clause " realise amounts of decrees " does not refer to the two decrees in question. Now, in the first place, there is a provision that the mortgagees will collect rents in arrear and current. There is a further provision that they will realise the amount of decrees and this is followed by another provision that they will bring suits for arrears of rent. It seems to me to be clear that the word " decrees " here refers to decrees which were already in existence and must have been obtained by the mortgagor. They do not refer to decrees to be obtained by the mortgagee which is provided for in the succeeding clause giving the mortgagee the right to bring suits for arrears of rent. In that view the Court of first instance was right in holding that there has been a transfer of the interest of the decree-holder in writing. There has been reference to some cases, namely the cases of Ananda Mohan Roy v. Promotha Nath Ganguli 25 C. W. N.1863 (1920), Mathurapur Zemindary Co., Ltd. v. Bhasaram, Mandal 28 C. W. N. 626 (1926) and Prabashinee Debi v. Rasik Lal Banerji I. L. R. 59 Cal. 297 (1931). In all these cases there was no assignment of decree expressly mentioned, but there was an assignment of arrears of rent. In the case of Ananda Mohan Roy v. Promotha Nath Ganguli 25 C. W. N.1863 (1920) referred to above a suit had already been brought in respect of the arrears and a decree was obtained on the very date of the assignment. It was held that there was assignment of the decree. In the other cases the decrees were obtained by the assignor subsequent to the date of assignment. The present case seems to be stronger than the case of Ananda Mohan v. Promotha Nath Ganguli 25 C. W. N.1863 (1920) and it is quite clear upon the words of the deed of mortgage that there was an assignment of the decree-holders' interest in writing. I hold accordingly. 2. The next point is whether sec. 148 (o) of the Bengal Tenancy Act is a bar to the execution of the decrees. This point has been decided by the learned Judge in favour of the Appellants. But it is raised in this Court in behalf of the Respondents. I hold accordingly. 2. The next point is whether sec. 148 (o) of the Bengal Tenancy Act is a bar to the execution of the decrees. This point has been decided by the learned Judge in favour of the Appellants. But it is raised in this Court in behalf of the Respondents. The queston is whether the landlord's interest in the land has become and is vested in the assignee of the decrees. The learned Advocate for the Respondents concedes that the usufructuary mortgagees are entitled to recover rent in place of the landlord, but his contention is that a usufructuary mortgage is not a transfer of the whole of the landlord's interest and therefore there has been no vesting. Now the question is what is meant by landlords' interest in this section. This was decided by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sambhu Nath v. Sheo Pershad I. L. R. 40 Cal. 462, s. c. 17 C. W. N. 276 (F. B.) (1913). It was held there that by the term landlord's interest is meant the interest of a person entitled to receive the rent from the tenant at the date of the application for the execution of the decree. Since it is conceded that to this extent the Appellants did have the interest of the person entitled to sue for rent, it follows that there was vesting within the meaning of the section. This very point was argued in the case of Brohmanand Nath Deb Sircar v. Hem Chandra Mitra 18 C. W.N. 1016 (1914). It was argued there that a usufructuary mortgagee is a transferee of a portion only of the interest vested in the mortgagor. It was pointed out, that did not affect the question. An intermediate lessee is entitled to collect rent from the tenant which but for the lease would have been payable to his landlord. The usufructuary mortgagee is a person immediately under whom the tenant holds and he is in the position of a landlord and is entitled to sue for rent in his character as such. There is therefore no substance in this contention. 3. The result is that the appeals are allowed. The orders of the lower Appellant Court are reversed and those of the trial Court restored with costs in this Court as also in the Court below. There is therefore no substance in this contention. 3. The result is that the appeals are allowed. The orders of the lower Appellant Court are reversed and those of the trial Court restored with costs in this Court as also in the Court below. The hearing-fee in this Court is assessed at two gold mohurs for the two appeals. Leave to file further appeals under the Letters Patent is refused.