JUDGMENT Desai, J. - The following question has been referred to this Bench for answer: Where a decree for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of a period prior to the date of vesting under the UP ZA and LR Act has been passed in favour of a decree-holder, can the decree holder execute such decree for arrears of rent by sale of the sirdari rights of the judgment debtor after the coming into force of the UP ZA and LR Act? 2. The material facts are these. The opposite parties obtained in 1950 a decree for arrears of rent amounting to more than Rs. 1,000 u/s 148 of the UP Tenancy Act against the Applicants, who were ex proprietary tenants. In February 1951, the opposite parties applied for execution of the decree by sale of the ex-proprietary rights of the Applicants as permitted by Section 251 of the UP Tenancy Act. While the execution application was pending the UP ZA and LR Act was enacted and the UP Tenancy Act was repealed. The former Act came into force on 1-7-1952. Under its provisions the Applicants became Sirdars in place of exproprietary tenants of the holding in dispute and thereupon they meet an objection in the executing court to the maintainability of the application for execution of the decree by sale of their Sirdari rights in the holding. The objection having been dismissed by the executing court and the Civil judge sitting on appeal, the Applicants filed this revision application. Our brother Beg, before whom the revision came up for disposal, considered that the question reproduced above is an important question likely to arise in many cases and referred it to a Bench. Though the question is in general words, we would answer it only with reference to the particular facts of this case, e.g The facts that the decree for arrears of rent was passed against an exproprietary tenant prior to the date of vesting under the ZA and LR Act and an application for execution of it by sale of the exproprietary right's in the holding was made before the date of vesting. 3. The relevant law in force under the UP Tenancy Act was as follows. Except as otherwise provided by the Act an arrear of rent was recoverable "by suit, or by notice" in accordance with the provisions of the Act; see Section 148. 3. The relevant law in force under the UP Tenancy Act was as follows. Except as otherwise provided by the Act an arrear of rent was recoverable "by suit, or by notice" in accordance with the provisions of the Act; see Section 148. Section 147 prohibited the execution of a decree for arrears of rent by the arrest or detention of the tenant. Certain arrears of rent were recoverable as arrears of land revenue, vide Ss 153 and 154. No tenant could be ejected from his holding otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act; see Section 157. A landholder was permitted by Section 163 to apply to the tahsildar for the issue of a notice to an exproprietary tenant for payment of arrears of rent due by him and in default for his ejectment from his holding; u/s 165 if he did not pay the arrears within the time fixed by the tahsildar, he was to be ordered to be ejected from the holding. If a decree for arrears of rent passed against an exproprietary tenant was not completely satisfied within one year, the landholder was given a right by Section 168 to apply to the court passing the decree for a notice to the tenant for payment of the decretal amount and for his ejectment in default. Section 158 laid down that when a tenant was ejected from his holding "in execution of a decree or order of ejectment for arrears of rent, all arrears of rent, whether decreed or not, due in its (sic) of such holding on the date of the delivery of possession shall be deemed to have been paid." Every decree or order for ejectment was to be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Section 181. Section 251 laid down that the interest of an exproprietary tenant could be sold in execution of a decree for arrears of the "sent of such holding" and unless the interest was purchased by the landholder thereof, the purchaser was to have the same interest, end was to be subject to the same liabilities (sic) respect of it as the tenant. Instead of selling the interest of a tenant the executing court had the option, u/s 252, of leasing the holding for a certain period to any person who paid into court the decretal amount. Instead of selling the interest of a tenant the executing court had the option, u/s 252, of leasing the holding for a certain period to any person who paid into court the decretal amount. The rules framed by Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 292 of the Act provided that when the interest of an exproprietary tenant was purchased in execution of a decree u/s 251, the tenant should be ejected from the holding and the purchaser should be put into possession of it. The Applicants were liable to be ejected from their exproprietary holding in execution of the decree for arrears of its rent u/s 251. The question is whether this liability was affected by the enforcement of the UP ZA and LR Act of 1-7-1952. The interest of a Sirdar is not transferable except as expressly provided by the Act; see Section 153. Any transfer made by him in contravention of the provisions of the Act is rendered void by Section 166. The interest of a Sirdar is extinguished when he dies heirless or abandons or surrenders the holding or when the holding has been transferred, let out or used in contravention of the Act, or when the holding has been acquired, or when he is ejected in accordance with the provisions of the Ace or when he is deprived of possession and his right to recover possession becomes barred by limitation. No sirdar can be ejected from his holding except as provided in the Act; see Section 200. He is liable to be ejected from the holding at the instance of the gaon samaj if he makes a void transfer or uses the land in contravention of the Act or cultivates land which was recorded as or was, land for public utility. No sirdar can be ejected for arrears of rent or in execution of a decree for arrears of rent. Section 7, which occurs in Ch. II consisting of Sections 4 to 26, is as follows: (7) Nothing contained in this Chapter shall in any way affect the right of any person. No sirdar can be ejected for arrears of rent or in execution of a decree for arrears of rent. Section 7, which occurs in Ch. II consisting of Sections 4 to 26, is as follows: (7) Nothing contained in this Chapter shall in any way affect the right of any person. (b) to recover any arrears of rent...which accrued before the date of vesting and the same shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, be recoverable as heretofore by the person entitled thereto: Provided that no decree for an arrear of rent or order for ejectment in default of an arrear of rent shall be executed by ejectment of the judgment debtor from his holding. 4. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 342 made the UP Land Tenures (Legal Proceedings) (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1952. Clause 2 of it provides that "except as expressly provided in the UP ZA and LR Act...or...Rules 1952, every suit, appeal or legal proceedings in respect of any right...or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under or in pursuance of...the UP Tenancy Act, 1939, shall (a) where pending on 30-6-1952, in any Revenue or Civil Court, be continued in such Court; ... and every such suit, appeal or legal proceedings shall be heard, inquired into and decided under and in accordance with the provisions of...UP Tenancy Act, 1939. 5. Clause 3 provides that "an order for payment of arrears of rent passed before 1-7-1952, under Sub-section (4) of Section 163 of the UP T Act, 1939, shall...be executable, except by ejectment of the judgment debtor, as if it were a decree passed u/s 148 of the said Act." 6. The opposite parties' application for execution of their decree by sale of the Applicant's exproprietary rights u/s 251, UP Tenancy Act, was a legal proceeding in respect of aright or liability acquired or incurred under the UP Tenancy Act, Since it was pending on 30-6-1952, in a revenue court, it was to be continued in that court and it was to be heard, inquired into and decided in accordance with the provisions of the UP Tenancy Act under Clause 2 of the (Removal of Difficulties) Order. Clause 2 is to have effect "except as expressly provided in the UP ZA and LR Act," but the Act contains no express provision to the effect that such an execution application cannot be continued in the revenue court and cannot be heard, inquired into or decided in accordance with the provisions of the UP T Act. What is required for the non applicability of Clause 2 of the Order is an express provision laying down that the acts mentioned in the clause cannot be done. The provisions in the ZA and LR Act, referred to above, making a sirdar immune from ejectment in execution of a decree for arrears of rent or making his right non transferable or extinguishing his right on certain grounds only, do not amount to express provisions within the meaning of Clause 2. It is not enough that the Act contains some provisions, the effect of which would be inconsistent with the doing of the acts mentioned in the clause; there must be a provision in the Act directly forbidding the doing of the acts and then only the acts cannot be done. We do not agree with the contention of Sri Naithani that since the Ace makes other provisions for the satisfaction pf a decree for arrears of rent passed against a sirdar, the manner mentioned in Clause 2 of satisfying the decree cannot be adopted. Laying down the manner of satisfying a decree does not by itself amount to an "express" provision that another manner of satisfying it cannot be resorted to. 7. Clause 3 of the Order is irrelevant to the question before us. We are not concerned with an order made u/s 163(4) of the UP T Act. An order passed u/s 163(4) of the UP T Act could be followed up by an order of ejectment u/s 165 if the tenant did not comply with it, but Clause 3 prohibits the execution of an order passed before 1-7-1952 by ejectment; it does not follow that a decree for arrears of rent passed before 1-7-1952 cannot be executed by sale of the holding u/s 251 of the UP Tenancy Act. Under the clause an order for payment of arrears passed u/s 163(4) of the UP T Act is to be executable as if it were a deer e u/s 14E, but not by ejectment of the judgment debtor. Under the clause an order for payment of arrears passed u/s 163(4) of the UP T Act is to be executable as if it were a deer e u/s 14E, but not by ejectment of the judgment debtor. An order u/s 163(4) cannot be executed by ejectment of the judgment debtor, but it does not follow that a decree u/s 148 also cannot be executed by ejectment of the judgment debtor. All that is meant by Clause 3 is that while a decree u/s 148 may be executable by ejectment of the judgment debtor, an order u/s 163(4), though to be executed like a decree u/s 148 cannot be executed by ejectment of the defaulter. Further, execution of a decree or order by sale of the tenancy rights u/s 251 is not execution by ejectment of the judgment debtor or defaulter. Even though sale of the tenancy rights results in the dispossession of the tenant from the holding, the execution remains execution by sale of tenancy rights and does not become one by ejectment of the judgment debtor. There is this essential difference between execution by ejectment and execution in other ways, that in the former case the ejectment itself amounts to satisfaction of the decree for arrears of rent. Section 158 makes it quite clear that whatever ejectment is involved in the sale of tenancy lights u/s 251, it is not in execution of a decree or order of ejectment. Sections 168 and 170 were the only Sections in the UP T Act dealing with execution of decrees passed u/s 148 by ejectment of the judgment debtors; Section 168 dealt with execution against an exproprietary occupancy or hereditary tenant, while Section 170 dealt with execution of a decree against a non occupancy tenant. Section 168 itself distinguishes between execution of a decree by sale of the tenancy rights u/s 251 and execution of by ejectment. If a decree is executed by sale of the tenancy rights, it is deemed to have been satisfied and there can be no further execution by an order of ejectment passed in default of the payment. Naturally there can be ejectment in execution of a decree only if the tenancy rights of a judgment debtor have not already been sold u/s 251. Naturally there can be ejectment in execution of a decree only if the tenancy rights of a judgment debtor have not already been sold u/s 251. If they have been sold not only does the sale wipe off the arrears but also after the sale it would be wholly meaningless to pass an order of ejectment u/s 168. 8. There is nothing in Section 251 to prevent the judgment debtors himself purchasing his tenancy rights. Such a case would be extremely rare in practice because if a judgment' debtor has money to purchase the tenancy rights, he would naturally satisfy the decree instead of allowing the tenancy rights to be sold. But he is not debarred from purchasing them and theoretically he can purchase them in which case there will be no question of his being evicted in accordance with the rules made by the State Government. If he himself purchases the tenancy rights he would continue to be the tenant and though the decree is executed by sale of his tenancy rights, it does not bring about his ejectment even indirectly. We find nothing in Clause 3 that would protect the Applicants against the sale of their rights u/s 251. 9. What is meant by Section 7(b) of ZA and LR Act is that any right to recover arrears of rent that had accrued before 1-7-1952 in favour of any person is not affected by any thing contained in Sections 4 to 26 of the Act. These sections deal with the vesting of estates of previous landholders in the State and with the acquisition of bhumidhari, sirdari and asami rights by cultivators of the estates. They thus deal with the question who would be entitled to recover the arrears of rent but not with the question of the manner in which they can be recovered. The effect of Section 7(b) is that whoever had the right before 1-7-1952 of recovering the arrears retains it notwithstanding the vesting of the estates in the State; it does not touch the method of recovery except as laid down in the provisos. By the first proviso the right to execute the decree by ejectment of the judgment-debtor from his holding has been taken away. By the first proviso the right to execute the decree by ejectment of the judgment-debtor from his holding has been taken away. As we explained earlier, it is only the right conferred by Sections 168 and 170 of (sic) UPT Act that has been taken away by the proviso; it means that the right to recover the arrears by sale u/s 251 of the Act is left untouched by the proviso. Section 7 is thus in favour of the opposite parties. The interest of a sirdar can be transferred if the transfer is expressly permitted by the Act. Section 7 (b), read in the light of the first proviso, expressly permits the execution of a decree passed u/s 148, UPT Act, by sale of certain rights u/s 251. But the rights that were made saleable were certain rights created under the Tenancy Act. None of the rights created by the ZA and LR Act could possibly be and was, made saleable. Therefore, Section 7(b) may be construed as expressly permitting the sale of certain rights but not any of the rights created under the ZA and LR Act, like the right of a sirdar. 10. In spite of what we have said above and in spite of the fact that the right to execute the decree in accordance with the provisions of the UPT Act is retainted, we must hold that Section 251 is incapable of application for the simple reason that the right that was saleable by it no longer exists and it is impossible to sell it. Obviously one cannot sell what does not exist. u/s 251 the right of only an exproprietary tenant, or of an occupancy tenant or of a hereditary tenant could be sold and not any other right. If any such right exists even now, it can be sold u/s 251 by virtue of Section 7 of the ZA and LR Act and the (Removal of Difficulties) Order, but the fact is that none of the rights mentioned in Section 251 exists now. The ZA and LR Act has taken effect absolutely and all exproprietary, occupancy and hereditary rights have been wiped off and new rights, such as sirdar rights, adhivasi rights and asami rights have been created by the ZA and LR Act. The ZA and LR Act has taken effect absolutely and all exproprietary, occupancy and hereditary rights have been wiped off and new rights, such as sirdar rights, adhivasi rights and asami rights have been created by the ZA and LR Act. Neither Section 7 nor the (Removal of Difficulties) Order has prevented the enforcement of the provisions of the ZA and LR Act; neither of them has the effect of retaining exproprietary, occupancy and hereditary rights in order that they might be sold in execution of decrees Section 7 of the ZA and LR Act and the (Removal of Difficulties, Order may permit certain proceedings to be conducted as if the Tenancy Act were still in force, but only so far as they can be conducted (sic) the Tenancy Act. If it is impossible to apply the provisions of the Tenancy Act in the circumstances altered by the ZA and LR Act, they cannot be applied. If the rights mentioned in Section 251 do not exist now, it is impossible to think of selling any of those rights. Section 7 and the (Removal of Difficulties) Order allow Section 251, UP T Act, to be applied but only to be applied as it stands; the court has no power to modify its provisions and to apply the modified provisions. Ii has no power to read the words "of a sirdar, of a bhumidhar, of an adhivasi" tor the words "of an exproprietary tenant, of an occupancy tenant or of a hereditary tenant." It has not got this power even though the rights of a sirdar or a bhumidhar or an adhivasi might have been derived from exproprietary, occupancy or hereditary rights. It might be that the Applicants acquired their sirdari rights on 1-7-52 on account of their possessing exproprietary tenancy rights prior to 1-7-52, but the two rights are essentially different and the sirdari rights existing now cannot be said to be the exproprietary rights mentioned in Section 251. Exproprietary, occupancy and hereditary rights mentioned in Section 251 were special rights created by the UP T Act and were extinguished on repeal of the Act, Sirdari rights are created by the ZA Act and being created by a different Act, must be held to be entirely different from any of the rights created by the Tenancy Act. Exproprietary, occupancy and hereditary rights mentioned in Section 251 were special rights created by the UP T Act and were extinguished on repeal of the Act, Sirdari rights are created by the ZA Act and being created by a different Act, must be held to be entirely different from any of the rights created by the Tenancy Act. That a person possessing a certain right under the Tenancy Act has been granted a certain right under the ZA and LR Act simply on account of his possessing the former right is irrelevant; it does not at all establish the identity of the two rights. The two rights are entirely different even though certain incidents may be common to them. A right created by one Act and extinguished on its repeal can never be said to be identical with a right created by another Act which repeals the former. The ZA and LR Act conferred sirdari rights upon the Applicants because they previously possessed exproprietary rights, but this basis of their acquisition of sirdari rights does not mean identity of the sirdari rights with the exproprietary rights. There might be some common incidents but there are some incidents which are uncommon. The most important difference between the two rights is that while an exproprietary right was saleable in execution of a decree under the Tenancy Act, a sirdari right is not saleable in execution of a decree. The ZA and LR Act contains no provision similar to that in Section 251, UP T Act. This means that a sirdari right is different from an exproprietary right and that when one applies Section 251, one can sell an exproprietary right but not a sirdari right in its place and one cannot interpret "the interest of an exproprietary tenant" to mean "the interest of a sirdar." Neither Section 7 of the ZA and LR Act nor the (Removal of Difficulties) Order permits the court either to interpret Section 251 in this manner or to apply it in a modified form so as to be available against the rights created on the basis of the rights mentioned in it. 11. 11. It is fallacious to argue that Section 7 preserves the right of the opposite parties in spite of the Applicant's being sirdars; it may preserve their right to proceed u/s 251 but does not preserve the old exproprietary rights of the Applicants so that they can be sold u/s 251. 12. Our answer to the question must therefore, be "No." Let the reference be returned to our brother Beg.