JUDGMENT K. N. Srivastava, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment and order passed by Sri M. C. Agarwala, Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Mathura, allowing the appeal against the judgment and order passed by Sri N. B. Asthana, Additional 'Munsif, Mathura. 2. The facts giving raise to this appeal are as follows :- The respondent is the owner of a certain house of which the appellant was a tenant. The respondent filed a suit against the appellant for arrears of rent and ejectment. That suit was decreed. Before the decree was executed, the respondent accepted rent from the appellant through money order receipt. When the decree was rut in execution by the respondent, the appellant filed an objection under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code that the respondent had accepted him as a tenant by accepting rent subsequent to the date of the decree and, therefore, the decree for ejectment was not executable. The respondent contended that he accepted the amount not as rent but by way of damages. This contention of the respondent did not find favour with the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. Both the courts below held that the respondent accepted the amount remitted by the appellant as rent of the premises. On this finding, the trial court dismissed the execution application. 3. The lower appellate court held that although the respondent accepted the rent, the objection under Section 47 was not maintainable because the appellant did not apply under Order 21, Rule 2, C.P.C. for certification and therefore, the trial court's order was set aside and the execution application was sent back to the trial court for execution of the decree expeditiously. Being dissatisfied, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the matter related to discharge, satisfaction and execution of the decree and there was no account of the appellant to be certified under Order 21, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code and therefore the view taken by the lower appellate court was erroneous. The lower appellate court relied on a decision of this court in Akbar Ali Khanv. Dr. Ishwar Saran-Respondent, AIR 1957 Allahabad 622. In this reported case, the judgment-debtor had taken an objection that there was a settlement of account between the parties after the decree and the decree had been satisfied. The lower appellate court relied on a decision of this court in Akbar Ali Khanv. Dr. Ishwar Saran-Respondent, AIR 1957 Allahabad 622. In this reported case, the judgment-debtor had taken an objection that there was a settlement of account between the parties after the decree and the decree had been satisfied. What was held in this case was that the payment had to be certified under Order 21, Rule 2. C.P.C. and without there being such a certificate, the objection under section 47, Civil Procedure Code was not maintainable. The other question which arose for determination in this reported case was as to whether the objection under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code could be treated as an application under Order 21, Rule 2, C.P C. That question was also replied in the negative because no such prayer had been made in the objection. The learned lower appellate court was, therefore, not correct in applying the above reported case to the facts of the case. In the instant case, no payment was made by the judgment-debtor and as such there was no need for an application being filed under Order 21, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. All that was pleaded in the instant case was that by accepting rent of a period subsequent to the date of decree, the respondent treated the appellant as tenant and as such the appellant was not liable to ejectment on the basis of the earlier decree. 5. Both the trial court and the lower appellate court recorded a concurrent finding that the amount which the Respondent accepted from the appellant was not by way damages for use and occupation of the premises but was accepted as rent of the premises. Once the landlord accepts rent from tenant, it leaves no room for doubt that he accepts the tenant as such and subsequently he cannot raise a plea that the person concerned was not his tenant. This conduct of the respondent clearly amounted to discharge of the decree. 6. The next question which would arise determination in this case would be as to whether such a plea could be taken under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure . This conduct of the respondent clearly amounted to discharge of the decree. 6. The next question which would arise determination in this case would be as to whether such a plea could be taken under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure . My reply to this question would be in the affirmative because of the fact that a decree-holder can agree with the judgment-debtor after passing of the decree, that he would not execute the decree or may agree by an agreement that the parties be relegated to their old position of landlord and tenant. There was nothing illegal if the landlord and tenant entered into such a compromise. In the instant case, the landlord accepted rent from the tenant after the decree and this left no room for doubt that by such an acceptance, the landlord allowed the tenant against whom a decree for ejectment had bees passed to continue and occupy the premises as tenant. If subsequently the decree-holder realised from the aforesaid agreement and executed the decree, the judgment-debtor can very well take such an objection under Section 47, Civil Procedure because the same relates to the discharge, satisfaction and execution of the decree. The trial court, therefore, rightly held that the decree was not executable in view of the fact that the landlord had accepted rent subsequently from the tenant. The aforesaid decision of this Court relied upon by the lower appellate court, therefore, does not apply to the facts of the case. 7. The appeal, therefore, succeeds. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the lower appellate court is set aside and the one passed by the trial court is restored. The parties to bear their respective costs of this appeal.