JUDGMENT Mukherjea, J. - This appeal is on behalf of the judgment-debtor, and it is directed against the appellate order of Mr. P. Gupta, Additional District Judge of Dacca, dated the 22nd November, 1943, affirming an order of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, of that place, by which he dismissed the objections of the Appellant to the execution of the decree under sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The material facts are not in controversy, and may be stated as follows: The Respondents decree-holders obtained a decree for rent in respect of a putni tenure against the Appellant on the 27th July, 1942. The decree was affirmed on appeal on 25th November, 1942. In the meantime, there being default in the payment of the putni rent for the period subsequent to the institution of the suit, the putni was put up to sale under Regulation VIII of 1819 on the 15th May, 1943, and it was purchased by a stranger. The decree-holders have now sought to execute the rent decree by attachment of the surplus sale proceeds of the putni sale amounting to Rs. 3,444 and annas odd lying with the Collector to the credit of the judgment-debtor. To this the judgment-debtor raised objections contending inter alia that under the proviso to cl. (3) of sec. 17 of the Putni Regulation, the landlord had no right to proceed against the surplus sale proceeds of a putni for realisation of his antecedent balances, and that sec. 168A of the Bengal Tenany Act operated as a bar to the present application for execution. 2. The Subordinate Judge who heard the matter overruled both these contentions, and allowed execution to proceed. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed by the Additional District Judge of Dacca. The judgment-debtor has now come up on second appeal to this Court. Mr. Nagendra Nath Bose appearing on behalf of the Appellant has put forward two contentions in support of the appeal. 3. His first contention is that under the proviso to cl. (3) of sec. 17 of the Putni Regulation, the landlord has no charge on the surplus sale proceeds of a putni sold under the Regulation, for the amount due as arrears of rent for an antecedent period, and consequently, he is not entitled to attach the surplus sale proceeds in execution of a decree for previous arrears of rent. 4. (3) of sec. 17 of the Putni Regulation, the landlord has no charge on the surplus sale proceeds of a putni sold under the Regulation, for the amount due as arrears of rent for an antecedent period, and consequently, he is not entitled to attach the surplus sale proceeds in execution of a decree for previous arrears of rent. 4. The second contention raised is that sec. 168A (1) (a) of the Bengal Tenancy Act precludes the landlord from attaching any property other than the tenure or holding in arrears for the satisfaction of the rent decree. 5. So far as the first point is concerned, Mr. Bose relies entirely upon sec. 17, cl. (3), proviso of the Putni Regulation. Now, sec. 17 of the Putni Regulation lays down the manner in which sale proceeds of a putni are to be disposed of after a sale is held under the Regulation. In the first place, it is provided by cl. (2) that one per cent, of the sale proceeds is to be carried to the account of the Government for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the establishment which the Government has got to keep for carrying into effect the provisions of the Regulation. Cl. (3) next provides that the balance on account of which the sale was held was then to be made good out of the sale proceeds with all interest and charges incurred in bringing the Putni to sale. Upon this clause, a proviso is engrafted which: says that no former balance beyond those of the current year or of the year immediately expired, if the sale was held at the commencement of the following year, shall be included in the demand to be thus satisfied. The antecedent balances would become mere personal debts of the talukdar and would be recoverable in the same manner as other debts by regular suit in a Civil Court. 6. Although the point is not altogether free from doubt, we may concede in favour of the Appellant that when a putni is sold under the provisions of Regulation VIII of 1819, the effect of such a sale is to destroy the charge which the landlord had on the tenure in respect of the former balances which are reduced to mere personal debts, and that the charge is not transferred to the surplus sale proceeds. We may take it that in the present case, no suit haying been filed by any under-tenure-holder or any other person interested in the tenure as contemplated by cl. (5), sec. 17 of the Putni Regulation, the surplus sale proceeds are now payable to the judgment-debtor and that the landlord has no charge upon them on account of the previous arrears even though he recovered a decree for the same prior to the putni sale. But that by itself is of no assistance to the Appellant judgment-debtor. The landlord may not claim payment of former demands from out of the surplus sale proceeds under sec. 17 of the Putni Regulation, but the Putni Regulation itself provides that the landlord is entitled to recover the previous balances in the same way as he can recover a personal debt from the putnidar. 7. Here the landlord has got a decree already, and unless the provisions of sec. 168A of the Bengal Tenancy Act or any other law stand in his way, he is certainly entitled to execute the decree in the same way as he could execute any other personal decree against the judgment-debtor. It is quite immaterial that the charge created by the decree does not exist or is not transferred after the sale of the putni to the surplus sale proceeds. What the landlord is seeking to do is not to enforce his charge against the tenure itself which is now represented by the sale proceeds, but to proceed to attach the money belonging to the judgment-debtor in the same manner as He could do in execution of an ordinary money decree. 8. The real point for determination, therefore, is whether sec. 168A of the Bengal Tenancy Act stands in the way of the decree-holder. It can not be disputed that the operation of sec. 168A of the Bengal Tenancy Act is not excluded by reason of the fact that the rent decree can operate only as a money decree, and there is also no question of merger in the present case which could attract the proviso to sec. 168A (1) (a) of the Bengal Tenancy Act; but we think that the decree-holder takes up a sound position when he says that it is not necessary for him to invoke the aid of the proviso in his favour as the provision of cl. (a) of sec. 168A (1) (a) of the Bengal Tenancy Act; but we think that the decree-holder takes up a sound position when he says that it is not necessary for him to invoke the aid of the proviso in his favour as the provision of cl. (a) of sec. 168A (1)itself does not hit him. All that sec. 168A (1) (a) of the Bengal Tenancy Act prohibits in execution of a rent decree is the attachment and sale of any property, immovable or movable, belonging to the judgment-debtor other than the tenure in arrears. The language of the section does not bar any other form of execution available to the decree-holder under the law by which he can attempt to realise the decretal dues without attachment and sale of any property of the judgment-debtor other than the tenancy in arrears. As the decree-holders, in the present case, do not want to attach and sell any property belonging to the judgment-debtor, but only to attach some money lying to the credit of the latter under the provision of Or. 21, r. 52 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we do not think that they come within the mischief of sec. 168A of the Bengal Tenancy Act at all. This view is fully supported by a recent pronouncement of this Court in Anil Kumar Basu v. Roy Biman Behari Mitra 48 C.W.N. 344 (1944). 9. The result is that, in our opinion, the view taken by the Courts below is right and this appeal should be dismissed. We desire only to make it clear that we express no opinion as to the claims of any other person interested in the tenancy and who would be entitled under the law to prefer any claim in respect of the money that has been attached by the decree-holders. This appeal is dismissed with costs: Hearing-fee two gold mohurs. Akram, J. I agree.