Judgment :- 1. The petitioners herein are the defendants, judgment-debtors, in a decree on a promissory note. When execution was taken, they contended that the promissory note had been executed for the arrears of rent then due, and therefore the execution was really a proceeding to realise arrears of rent and had to be stayed under the Kerala Act I of 1957. The court below overruled the objection, and amended the decree under S.7 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 31 of 1958 This petition is to revise that order. 2. S.4 of Act I of 1957 applied only to suits or other proceedings for: the recovery of arrears of rent. Here, the proceedings were not to recover arrears of rent, but money due under a promissory note; and therefore the section could not be applied to the instant case. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that under S.34 of the Agrarian Relations Act, IV of 1961, all arrears of rent accured before 1957 would stand discharged if payment is made of one year's rent before 15-2-1962, and on such payment being made, which the petitioners propose to do in due time, the promissory note and the decree based thereon would fail in consideration and therefore execution should not be allowed to be taken before 15-2-1962. I do not see any force in his argument. 4. It is conceded that the arrears of rent accrued till date formed the consideration for the promissory note in question. Accounts were settled between the parties at the time of the execution of the promissory note, and for what was then found due from the petitioners to the respondent the promissory note came to be executed. The result was that, thereafter, the liability for the arrears of rent covered by the promissory note ceased to subsist; and in its place a new liability for money under the promissory note arose. Counsel for the petitioner's cited certain rulings to show that in case a promissory note executed in discharge of a prior obligation became unenforceable parties could fall back on the original obligation. That proposition has no application to the instant case, as the promissory note in question has merged in a decree which remains valid and enforceable. Counsel for the petitioner's cited certain rulings to show that in case a promissory note executed in discharge of a prior obligation became unenforceable parties could fall back on the original obligation. That proposition has no application to the instant case, as the promissory note in question has merged in a decree which remains valid and enforceable. S.34 of the Agrarian Relations Act does not affect a decree on a promissory note, even if the note was taken in satisfaction of arrears of rent. It is only to liabilities for arrears of rent as such, whether decreed of riot, that S.34 of the Agrarian Relations Act applies. To arrears of rent already discharged it has no application. 5. It is pertinent to note that in the Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, the application of which by the court below is the subject of challenge in this C.R.P., the legislature has made a distinction in clauses (vi) and (ix)of S.2 (c); the former exempts "any debt which represents the price of goods purchased for purposes of trade"; but the latter refers to "any rent or michavaram payable in respect of any land or building" and not to any debt which represents such rent or michavaram. It is clear therefore that only a liability for rent or michavaram as such has been excluded from the definition of a debt, and not a liability under a promissory note taken in discharge of arrears of rent. 6. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajagopala Venkata Narasimha (AIR. 1952 Madras 436) a Full Bench of the Madras High Court has also taken the view that a promissory note, executed between the landlord and the tenant in discharge of a liability for arrears of rent, would only be a debt under the promissory note and not a liability for arrears of rent. 7. The Civil Revision Petition has no merits. It is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.