JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - These appeals are by the judgment-debtor. The Respondent obtained decrees under sec. 66 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. He has taken possession of the holdings and is now attempting to realise the sums due on account of rent. The first objection pressed is that the decrees for rent have been automatically extinguished by the execution of the decree for ejectment. It is suggested that alternative reliefs are given. If this contention is sound it means that the landlord gets nothing for the arrears of rent. It is not a case of a holding being put to sale to realise the arrears. Here there is nothing to sell. The Appellant forfeited his right to keep his tenancy by his default to pay the rent. Sub-sec. (2) merely gives him another chance and has the practical effect of compelling the decree-holder to waive the default. It is certainly an alternative method of execution. Mr. Mitra relied on the well-known decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Arthur Henry Forbes v. Maharaja Bahadur Sing L. R. 41 I. A. 91 : S. C. 18 C. W. N. 747 (P. C.) (1914). The present question did not arise for decision at all. Their Lordships merely pointed on the decree-holder could not sue for ejectment if he was not the landlord at the time when his suit was instituted. 2. The other objection pressed was that execution is barred under sec. 168A of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In the first place it is now impossible to press this argument in view of the decision in the case of Sree Sree Iswar Radha Ballav Jew Thakur v. Mahima Ranjan Roy 49 C. W. N. 629 (1925). In the second place, these are the first application to execute the decrees for arrears of rent. The appeals are dismissed with costshearing fee, one gold mohur in each case.