1. The suits are brought in 1893 to recover rent due for the Faslies ending June 1888 and 1889. Prima facie they are barred by the act of limitation and the contention that the cause of action was suspended during the pendency of proceed-ngs to enforce acceptance of puttas is one which has been admittedly overruled in previous decisions. But it was argued for the plaintift that the provisions of Section 72 of the Rent Recovery Act had been overlooked and that the effect of that section was to give the landlord a fresh right of action against the tenant. We do not think that the section bears this construction. It declares that a copy of the judgment shall be of the same force and effect as a Muchilika; the obligation would be to pay rent in the Fasli to which the Muchilika relates, and under the judgment there can be no other obligation. It is an apparent hardship for the landlord that he should after succeeding in compelling his tenants to accept puttahs be unable to recover his rent. But the landlord was at liberty to institute suit before the other proceedings were concluded. His proper course was to file such a suit and if necessary to have the hearing adjourned until the disposal of the other proceedings between him and the tenants. Following the decision of this Court we think the question referred must be answered in the negative. We make no order as to costs.