Judgment : This civil revision petition is filed by the decree-holder whose execution petition has been dismissed on the ground that it is barred by limitation. 2. The decree that is sought to be executed is a money decree for arrears of rent. The date of decree is 14. 1972. The Execution Petition has been filed on 3. 1987. As per the general law of limitation a decree shall be executed within 12 years. Therefore, clearly the execution petition has been filed long after 12 years of the date of decree. In the execution petition it is stated that as the Tamilnadu Debt Relief Acts were in currency from 11. 1975 to 17. 1978 the execution petition is in time. 3. The executing court observing that arrears of rent is not a debt, held that the Debt Relief Acts are not applicable to the decree in question. It further held that even if the Debt Relief Acts are applicable the execution petition is barred by limitation. On these findings the executing court dismissed the execution petition. 4. Now in the civil revision petition Mr.V.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-decree-holder contends that the decree-holder is an agriculturist, and under the Tamilnadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act 10 of 1975, Tamilnadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act 15 of 1976, Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Second Amendment) Act (1 of 1977), Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Amendment) Act (3 of 1977) and Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Amendment) Act (2 of 1978) debt includes arrears of rent also, and there was moratorium for a period of 3 years, 6 months and this being the position the execution petition cannot be said to be time barred. 5. It is correct that under these Acts the Debt includes arrears of rent also. It is also correct that the total period of moratorium under these Acts is 3 1/2 years and if these Acts are applicable to the execution petition in question then the execution petition will be in time. But for the benefit of these Acts these judgment debtor must be an agriculturist. 6. It is contended by Mr.J.R.Bhavanantham,learned counsel appearing for the respondent-judgment-debtor that it has not been pleaded by the decree-holder that the judgment-debtor is an agriculturist and therefore the decree-holder cannot have the benefits of the said Acts. But for the benefit of these Acts these judgment debtor must be an agriculturist. 6. It is contended by Mr.J.R.Bhavanantham,learned counsel appearing for the respondent-judgment-debtor that it has not been pleaded by the decree-holder that the judgment-debtor is an agriculturist and therefore the decree-holder cannot have the benefits of the said Acts. Regarding this Mr.Srinivasan, read out the decree and would submit that it shows that the arrears of rent is in respect of lands leased out to the judgment-debtor and as per the lease agreement the judgment-debtor agreed to pay 90 bags of paddy per fasli, and this shows that the judgment-debtor has an interest in the agricultural land and therefore as per the definition of ‘agriculturist’ given in the Acts he is an agriculturist. 7. But from this alone, it cannot be said that the judgment-debtor is an agriculturist within the meaning of ‘Agriculturist’ defined in the said Acts because as per the definition ‘agriculturist’ given in the Acts, any person who was assessed to Income-tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) or to Agricultural Income-tax under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act 5 of 1955) or to sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1959), or under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956) for certain years mentioned in the said Acts is not an agriculturist. 8. Further, at the most, it can be argued that the decree would show that at the time of the decree, the judgment-debtor was an agriculturist and not subsequently especially when the execution petition was filed in 1987. Thus, it has not been proved that the judgment-debtor was an agriculturist at the time of execution petition was filed in 1987. Thus it has not been proved that the judgment-debtor was an agriculturist at the time of execution petition. Therefore, the decree-holder cannot say that in view of the said Acts the execution petition is not barred by limitation. Rightly therefore the execution court has dismissed the execution petition as time barred. Thus, I find no merit in the civil revision petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.