JUDGMENT B. K. Mukherjea, J. - (Appeals from original orders Nos. 366 and 367 of 1941). These two analogous appeals are on behalf of the landlord decree-holder and they are directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, 24 Prarganas, dated 13th August 1941, by which he allowed the objections of two sets of judgment-debtors preferred under S. 47, Civil P. C., and dismissed the execution case started by the appellant. There is no controversy about the facts of the case which lie within a very short compass. The respondents held a putni as tenants under the Maharaja of Burdwan who is the appellant in both the appeals. The rents due in respect of this putni were in arrears for a considerable period of time and on 15th May 1936 the putni was put up to sale under the provisions of Regln. 8 [VIII] of 1819 for recovery of the rent due for the last list of 1342 B. S. and it was purchased by a stranger. For recovery of the rent due in respect of the years 1339 to 1341 B. S. and the first list of 1342 B. S. the landlord instituted a suit, being rent Suit NO. 2 of 1937, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hooghly, and obtained a rent decree for a sum of rupees fifty six thousand and annas odd on 25th February 1938. The decree was put into execution several times between the years 1938 and 1940, and certain sums of money were realised from the judgment-debtor. The present execution case was started on 25th September 1940, in the Court of the Second Subordinate Judge of 24 Parganas, the decree being transmitted to that Court by the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, and as the tenure in arrears had already been sold, the decree-holder applied for recovery of the balance of the decretal dues by attachment and sale of certain other immovable properties belonging to the judgment-debtors. Objections were taken to this application for execution by the judgment-debtors Nos. 4 and 5 on the one hand, and the Official Receiver who figures as judgment-debtor No. 6 on the other, and these gave rise to Miscellaneous cases NOS. 24 and 40 of 1941. 2. The contention of both these sets of judgment-debtors, in substance, was that under S. 168A, Ben. Ten. 4 and 5 on the one hand, and the Official Receiver who figures as judgment-debtor No. 6 on the other, and these gave rise to Miscellaneous cases NOS. 24 and 40 of 1941. 2. The contention of both these sets of judgment-debtors, in substance, was that under S. 168A, Ben. Ten. Act, the landlord decree-holder was not competent to proceed against Dr. Sarat Chandra Basalt, Hiralal Chakravarti and Purushattam Chatterjee (in 366 & 367); Ranajit Kumar Banerjee (in 54) and Dr. Sarat Chandra Basak, Hiralal Chakravarti, Sarat Kumar Mitra and Purushottam Chatterjee (in 133) - for Appellants. Hem Chandra Sen, Sures Chandra Sen, Surojit Chandra Lahiri, Mohendra Nath Mitra and Prokas Chandra Bhose(in 366 & 367); Dr. Sarat Chandra Basak; Hiralal Chakravarti, any property of the judgment-debtors other than the tenure in arrears. This contention was given effect to by the learned Subordinate Judge, who allowed both the Miscellaneous eases, and dismissed the landlord's application for execution of the decree. The landlord has now come up on appeal to this Court. 3. The first and the main contention raised by Dr. Basak in support of the appeals is that S. 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act, to the extent that it limits the sale in execution of a decree for rent to the property in arrears is void under S. 107 (1), Government of India Act, 1935, inasmuch as it is repugnant to S. 51, Civil P. C., which is an existing Indian law relating to item 4 of the concurrent list. This identical question came for consideration on different occasions before different Division Benches of this Court, and the decisions have been uniformly against the contention of the appellant : vide 46 C. W. N. 540 Satish Chandra Hui and Others Vs. Sudhir Krishna Ghosh and Others, AIR 1942 Cal 429 Satish Chandra v. Bishnupada Pal ('42) 29 A. I. R. 1942 Cal. 470 : ILR (1942) 2 Cal. 325 : 202 I. C. 488 : 46 C. W. N. 628 and 46 C. W. N. 999 Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya v. Tofazzal Hossein ('42) 29 A. I. R. 1942 Cal. 587 : 204 I. C. 168 : 46 C. W. N. 999. All the points which were canvassed in the above cases were re-argued before us by Dr. 325 : 202 I. C. 488 : 46 C. W. N. 628 and 46 C. W. N. 999 Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya v. Tofazzal Hossein ('42) 29 A. I. R. 1942 Cal. 587 : 204 I. C. 168 : 46 C. W. N. 999. All the points which were canvassed in the above cases were re-argued before us by Dr. Basak, but in spite of his elaborate arguments, we have not been convinced that these cases have been wrongly decided, or that it is necessary to have the matter further considered by a larger Bench. 4. We agree with the view taken in the above cases that S. 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act, is a valid piece of legislation which is quite within the competence of the Provincial Legislature under items 2 and 21 of the provincial list. Item 21 of List 2 is wide enough to cover all matters of remedial or adjective law in relation to land and land tenures arising out of relationship of landlord and tenant, and includes provisions for collection and realisation of rent by the landlord from the tenant. Under item 2 of the Provincial List, the Provincial Legislature is capable of regulating the powers and jurisdiction of a civil Court with regard to any of the matters included in item 21. In our opinion, the Legislature by enacting S. 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act, has done nothing else except to curtail or take away the powers of the Court to allow the landlord decree-holder to proceed against any property of the tenant other than the tenancy in arrears for realisation of the decretal dues. This undoubtedly, it is competent to do. Really, a case of repugnancy does not arise if no aspect of any provincial legislation encroaches upon any field other than that of the Provincial Legislature. But, assuming as Dr. Basak argues, that the operation of S. 107 (1), Government of India Act, 1935, is not excluded from cases where the provisions of the provincial law are exclusively on provincial subjects, it is certainly necessary to attract the operation of the subsection that the existing Indian law with which a provincial law is said to have come into conflict relates to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent list. 5. 5. Now, the Bengal Tenancy Act is a self-contained Act, and lays down its own rules of procedure which govern suits between landlord and tenant and regulate the proceedings in execution of rent decrees. No provision of the CPC of its own force applies to any suit or proceeding under the Bengal Tenancy Act but by reason of the express provisions of S. 143 (2), Bengal Tenancy Act, the provisions of the CPC subject to certain modifications have been incorporated into the Act. If the procedure laid down in the Bengal Tenancy Act is to be changed or modified, it has certainly to be done by the Bengal Legislature. In our opinion, it is not enough to say that S. 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act, has introduced a provision differing from that contained in S. 51, Civil P.C. The rival existing Indian law in the present case is not S. 51, Civil P. C., but the provision of that section as incorporated into the Bengal Tenancy Act, but as that provision, so far as it deals with the question of procedure in a suit or proceeding between the landlord and the tenant comes under items 2 and 21 of the Provincial List, there is no existing Indian law on any matter enumerated in the concurrent list with which S. 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act, can be said to have come into conflict. 6. We are also definitely of opinion that the impugned section is not repugnant to S. 51, Civil P. C., and the repugnancy is avoided by the express words of S. 4 of the Code. That section lays down that in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law in force at the date of the commencement of the Code or any special jurisdiction or power conferred or any special form of procedure provided by or under any other law for the time being in force. The Bengal Tenancy Act has had all along a special form of procedure provided by it for execution of rent decrees, and S. 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act, only makes an addition to the provisions already existing. Dr. The Bengal Tenancy Act has had all along a special form of procedure provided by it for execution of rent decrees, and S. 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act, only makes an addition to the provisions already existing. Dr. Basak argues that there is no question of conferring any special power or creating any special jurisdiction in this case, as what has been done is only to take away some of the existing powers, but conferring of a special power or creation of special jurisdiction may, and, in fact, does imply the taking away or curtailing of the existing jurisdiction to some extent. The whole object of S. 168A is to limit the liability of the tenants in certain respects when a decree for rent has been obtained against him by the landlord. For the purpose of giving this protection, a special form of procedure has been introduced by S. 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act, and whether it superseded in part or modified the existing procedure is really immaterial. The powers which the Court has got to exercise are undoubtedly special powers which are quite different from those which are ordinarily vested in an executing Court. 7. The decision of the Federal Court in 49 C. W. N. (F.R.) 8 Mukunda Murari v. Pabitramoy Ghose ('45) 32 AIR 1945 F. C. 1 : 1944 F.C.R. 351 : I. L. R. (1945) Kar. F. C. 1 : 218 I. C. 172 : 49 C. W. N. (F.R.) 8 (F.C.) may be cited as an authority on the point. All that S. 3, Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy (Temporary Provisions) Act, provides is to take away the powers which the executing Court possesses under O. 21, R. 24, Civil P. C., but this curtailing or taking away of the existing power was construed to amount to conferring of special power or special jurisdiction within the meaning of S. 4, Civil P. C. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the provision of S. 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act, is not in any way repugnant to S. 51, Civil P. C., and consequently, it is not void under S. 107 (1), Government of India Act, 1935. 8. The only other ground put forward by Dr. 8. The only other ground put forward by Dr. Basak is that the decree in the present case which was for antecedent balances of the putni rent could not be a rent decree as laid down in the proviso to S. 17, Putni Regulation, and consequently, to the extent that S. 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act, deprives the landlord of his rights as an ordinary money decree-holder it is an encroachment upon the law as laid down in the Putni Regulation and under S. 195, Bengal Tenancy Act, the law laid down in the Putni Regulation is entitled to prevail. This point was also considered in 47 C. W. N. 520 Sk. Abdul Aziz and Another Vs. Maharaj Uday Chand Mahatab and Others, AIR 1943 Cal 358 , by a Division Bench of this Court of which I was a member. It was there pointed out that S. 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act, does not, in any way affect the right of instituting a suit or obtaining a decree. The only restriction it imposes is upon the mode of execution of the decree and as no particular mode of execution is prescribed in the Putni Regulation itself, it cannot be said that S. 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act, is in conflict with the proviso to S. 17 of the Putni Regulation. The result is that both the contentions are overruled, and the appeals are dismissed with costs: Hearing fee two gold mohurs in each appeal. Certificate under S. 205 (1), Government of India Act, 1935, is granted in each appeal. 9. Appeal from Appellate Order No. 54 of 1942.-This appeal, in our opinion, should be allowed. The Court of appeal below has dismissed the objection of the judgment debtor under S. 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act, on the ground that the said section is not applicable to putni tenures. This decision cannot be supported, in view of the several decisions of this Court: Vide 46 C. W. N. 540 Satish Chandra Hui and Others Vs. Sudhir Krishna Ghosh and Others, AIR 1942 Cal 429 Satish Chandra v. Bishnupada Pal ('42) 29 A. I. R. 1942 Cal. 470 : ILR (1942) 2 Cal. 325 : 202 I. C. 488 : 46 C. W. N. 628. 10. Sudhir Krishna Ghosh and Others, AIR 1942 Cal 429 Satish Chandra v. Bishnupada Pal ('42) 29 A. I. R. 1942 Cal. 470 : ILR (1942) 2 Cal. 325 : 202 I. C. 488 : 46 C. W. N. 628. 10. The learned advocate for the respondent attempted to support the decision on the ground that S. 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act, is inoperative by reason of its being repugnant to S. 51, Civil P. C. This contention has been negatived in a series of decisions to which reference has already been made. The result is that this appeal is allowed. The order of the Court of appeal below is set aside and that of the Court of first instance is restored and affirmed. We make no order as to costs in this appeal. Certificate under S. 205 (1), Government of India Act, 1935, is granted. 11. Appeal from Original Order No. 133 of 1942. - This appeal is dismissed-the grounds taken in support of this appeal being identically the same as were raised in appeals from Original Order Nos. 366 and 367 of 1941. We make no order as to costs in this appeal. Certificate under S. 205 (1), Government of India Act, 1935, is granted. Akram, J. 12. I agree.