JUDGMENT Mukerjea, J. - This appeal is on behalf of the judgment-debtors and is directed against an appellate judgment of the Subordinate Judge, First Additional Court of 24-Pargannas, dated the 1st August, 1944, reversing an order of the Munsif, Second Court, at Diamond Harbour, made against the order of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Addl. Court of Zilla 24 Parganas (Mr. Rampada Mukherjee) dated the 1st August. 1944 reversing the order of the Munsif, 2nd Court Diamond Harbour (Mr. J.N. Hore) dated the 3rd May 1944. In a proceeding for execution of a rent decree under sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows. The judgment-debtors held a tenancy within the zamindari of late Raja Raj Kissen Deb Bahadur. The estate of the latter was in the hands of the Official Receiver, and he granted a lease of the zamindari property to which the holding of the judgment-debtors appertained to one Ashalata Deb Bowrani for a period of six years commencing from Baisak, 1335 B. S. The arrears of rent due up to the date of the lease were not, however, assigned to the lessee, and after the lease was granted, the Official Receiver instituted a rent suit against the judgment-debtors for recovery of arrears of rent due for the years 1343-44 B. S. and obtained a decree on 22nd October, 1940. On the 7th April, 1941, the rent decree was assigned to the Respondent, and on the strength of the assignment the assignee commenced the present proceeding for execution of the rent decree. 2. Objections were raised by the judgment-debtors under sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the contention put forward was that the execution was barred under sec. 148 (o) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, --the landlords' interest in respect of the tenancy not being assigned to or vested in the assignee of the decree. This contention found favour with the trial Court who dismissed the application for execution. On appeal, this judgment was reversed, and it was held by the learned Subordinate Judge that as the decree was obtained by the Official Receiver at a time when he was not the landlord in regard to the tenancy, the provisions of sec. 148 (o) of the Bengal Tenancy Act are not attracted to such a case. On appeal, this judgment was reversed, and it was held by the learned Subordinate Judge that as the decree was obtained by the Official Receiver at a time when he was not the landlord in regard to the tenancy, the provisions of sec. 148 (o) of the Bengal Tenancy Act are not attracted to such a case. It is the propriety of this judgment that has been assailed before us in this second appeal. 3. Now, sec. 148 (o) of the Bengal Tenancy Act provides that no application for execution of a decree for arrears of rent obtained by a landlord shall be made by the assignee of a decree unless the landlord's interest in the land has become and is vested in him when such an application is made. Whatever might be the policy underlying this provision, it is clear from the language used by the legislature that to bring a case within the mischief of the clause, two conditions must be fulfilled;--first, that the decree assigned must be for arrears of rent obtained by a landlord, and secondly, the assignee must not have the landlord's interest vested in him at the date when he makes the application for execution. Whether the bar created by this clause extends to preventing the assignee of the decree when he is not also the assignee of the landlords' interest from making any application at all for execution of the decree, or prevents him from excepting the decree only in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIV of the Bengal Tenancy Act has been the subject-matter of various conflicting decisions of this Court. On the one hand, there are authorities which lay down that the effect of cl. (o) of see. 148 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is not to prohibit the execution of the decree on the part of the transferee altogether, but only means that the transferee can have the decree executed on the footing that it is a money decree. On the one hand, there are authorities which lay down that the effect of cl. (o) of see. 148 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is not to prohibit the execution of the decree on the part of the transferee altogether, but only means that the transferee can have the decree executed on the footing that it is a money decree. On the other hand, there are decisions, --the number of which is not inconsiderable, which adopt a strict interpretation of the language of the section, and hold that the clause forbids the assignee of the decree for arrears of rent to make an application for executing the decree even as a simple decree for money under the Code of Civil Procedure, vide Manurattan Nath v. Hari Nath Das 1 O. L. J. 500 (1904), Bijan Bala Dutt v. Mathura Nath Sik dar 86 C. W. N. 51 (1930), Gopendra Prasad Sukul v. Ram Kishore Saha 37 C. W. N. 901 (1939) and Saroj Bhusun Ghosh v. Debendra Nath Ghosh 54 C. L. J. 506 (1931). It may be necessary at some time or other to have this conflict settled by a larger Bench, but we do nut think that for the purposes of this case, a reference to the Full Bench is necessary. 4. For the purposes of this case, we would proceed on the strict language of the section and avoid any speculation on the probable intention of the legislature, and the harm that might arise if alienation of a rent decree is to be regarded as interdicted altogether. The mischief of the cl. (o) of sec. 148 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, as we have already indicated comes into Operation it the two elements referred to above are fulfilled. So far as the present case is concerned it is not disputed that the assignee is not the landlord by assignment or otherwise; and consequently, the second condition mentioned above has not been complied with. The whole question, therefore, narrows down to this as to whether the first element is fulfilled; in other words, whether the decree is one for arrears of rent obtained by a landlord. In our opinion the answer to this question should be in the negative. 5. As said above, the Official Receiver granted a lease of the zamindari within which the holding is situated for a period of six years to Sm. Ashalata Bowrani. In our opinion the answer to this question should be in the negative. 5. As said above, the Official Receiver granted a lease of the zamindari within which the holding is situated for a period of six years to Sm. Ashalata Bowrani. The lease was to begin from Baisak, 1335 B. S. It does not purport to be an ijara, and we cannot agree with the learned Advocate for the Appellant that the document merely assigned the rent due for a certain number of years to the lessee. We have gone through the document carefully, and the terms clearly indicate that the entire right of the landlord was transferred to Ashalata Bowrani for the period that the lease was to be in force. According to sec. 3 (6) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, "landlord" means a person immediately under whom a tenant holds. The lease was from the 1st Baisak down to the time when it would come to an end by the efflux of time or otherwise and during the period. It was the lessee who was the landlord in respect of the tenancy held by the judgment-debtors. The Official Receiver, therefore, was not the landlord when he instituted the rent suit against these Appellants or obtained the decree, and the decree could not be deemed to be one for arrears rent obtained by a landlord. 6. It is contended by Mr. Mukherji who appears for the Appellants that the authorities go to show that a decree which is obtained by a co-sharer landlord and which consequently has not the effect of a rent decree proper does come within the purview of the section. We do not propose to examine the larger question as to whether cl. (o) of sec. 148 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is confined in its operation to cases where a suit for arrears of rent was so instituted as would result in a rent decree in the strict sense of the expression. Much could be said both for and against this view, but as the clause expressly speaks of a decree for arrears of rent obtained by a landlord, the expression "a landlord" can include a co-sharer landlord as well. Much could be said both for and against this view, but as the clause expressly speaks of a decree for arrears of rent obtained by a landlord, the expression "a landlord" can include a co-sharer landlord as well. In the present case, however, the decree was not obtained by any co-sharer landlord and the Official Receiver had parted with the landlord's interest by way of a lease before he instituted the rent suit, or obtained a decree. There is no decided authority which says that in such cases, the decree would be inexecutable by the assignee by reason of the provisions of sec. 148 (o) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. On the other hand, there is a decision, --Nagendra Nath Bose v. Bhuban Mohan Chakravarti (5) which to a great extent supports the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge. As the present case does not come within the purview of sec. 148 (o) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. we are of the opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge was light in holding that the application for execution was not barred. 7. The result, therefore, is that we affirm the decision of the Subordinate Judge and dismiss this appeal. We make no order as to costs in this Court. G.N. Das, J. I agree.