JUDGMENT Misra, J. - This is a Defendant's application u/s 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act against the decree passed by the lower Court in a suit for recovery of Rs. 353-4-0 on the foot of a bond. 2. The bond was executed by Baij Nath for 373-8-0 in lieu of arrears of rent which were due from him for the years 1337 Fasli to 1339 Fasli. By the terms of the bond the money payable in 15 equal instalments of Rs. 25 each. Nothing was paid by the Defendant, and a suit was brought by Lala Sri Nath on 8th April, 1941, for recovery of the entire amount of the bond except the sum due in respect of the first two instalments which had become barred by time. The suit was resisted by Baij Nath upon the ground that the consideration of the bond was illegal in view of Section 2 of the U.P. Stay of Proceedings (Revenue Courts) Act of 1937 (Act IV of 1937). It was also pleaded that the suit with respect to instalments beyond the 6th was premature. The first contention was not accepted by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court. As regards the second plea, he held that the Plaintiff was entitled to a decree for the amount claimed in respect of instalments Nos. 3 to 7. He accordingly decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 179-12-0 with proportionate costs. The rest of the claim was dismissed. The question with respect to the illegality of the consideration is now raised in revision. Section 2 of Act IV of 1937 provides for stay of proceedings in suits and applications relating to rent due from tenants. By Section 3 of the U.P. Stayed Arrears of Rent (Remission) Act of 1939, (Act No. XVIII of 1939) all suits or applications for recovery of arrears of rent, which have been stayed under the Provisions of the U.P. Stay of Proceedings (Revenue Courts) Act, 1937, were to be dismissed, and no Court was to entertain any suit or application for the recovery of arrears of rent which if instituted or made during the period in which the former Act was enforced would have been stayed under the provisions of that Act. In my opinion these enactments do not operate to render illegal the consideration of the bond of 15th May, 1933. In my opinion these enactments do not operate to render illegal the consideration of the bond of 15th May, 1933. This is because after the execution of that bond the consideration of it could no longer be considered to be arrears of rent, and the Acts of 1937 and 1939 could, therefore, have no operation in respect of them. In Mst. Ram Piari v. Daya Shanhar 1941 A.W.R. (Rev) 305 : O.A. (Sup) 194 : R.D. 234, it was held that-- "the provisions of the U.P. Stayed Arrears of Rent (Remission) Act of 1939 were not applicable to a suit on a contract in a Civil Court, that the contract having been executed several years before the U.P. Stay of Proceedings Act and the U.P. Stayed Arrears of Rent (Remission) Act were passed, it could not he said that the object or consideration of the agreement was at that time of such a nature as would defeat the provisions of any law within the meaning of Section 23 of the Contract Act, and that the suit was therefore, maintainable." 3. I am, therefore, of opinion that the suit was rightly decreed by the Court below. 4. This application must, therefore, fail and is dismissed with costs.