1. Two points have been argued in this case. The first is that the decree-holder, having parted with his interest as landlord in the property in respect of which arrears were claimed by him, was not a landlord of defendant at the time when he brought his suit and that, therefore, the suit was not one between a landlord and tenant within the meaning of Article 6, Schedule III, of the Bengal Tenancy Act; and, secondly, that even if the Article applied, the judgment-debtor, not having objected to previous executions after the expiry of three years under the special law of limitation, was precluded from taking that objection again.
2. Upon the first point, we think that the learned Vakil is right in his contention and he is supported by the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Arthur Henry Forbes v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh 23 Ind Cas. 632 : 41 C. 926 (P.C.) : 18 C.W.N. 747 : 15 M.L.T. 380 : (1914) M.W.N. 397 : 12 A.L.J. 653 : 27 M.L.T. 4 : 1 L.W. 1059. The decree-holder, having parted with his interest as landlord before he brought his suit for arrears, cannot be held to have been suing as a landlord in respect of arrears of rent from his tenant. The special law of limitation, therefore, does not apply and the decree-holder was entitled to execute his decree under the general law of limitation, according to which his application is not barred.
3. This being our view on the first question, it is not necessary to investigate the second point taken by the learned Vakil.
4. This appeal is decreed with costs, two gold mohurs.
5. Let the record be sent down.