Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. In the present case, it is not contended before us that the document, under which the purchaser from the judgment-debtor held the land, was one which made him an inferior proprietor. It must, therefore, follow that he was only a tenant. If he is a tenant, obviously he must be only ordinary tenant; and whatever other additional rights he may be able to get superadded to his ordinary tenancy by virtue of this contract, it is clear from the provisions of Sub-section (2), Section 70, that any contract imposing on his tenancy the incident of ejectability in execution of a decree or order would be opposed to the very terms of that sub-section. This provision is clearly not meant for the benefit of the particular Gountia alone and does not appear to be capable of waiver by him. Therefore, any such term in a lease executed after the commencement of the Act, would be clearly invalid and inoperative of course in the present case, we do not even have the terms of the document dated 15-1-1901, under which this tenancy was created. This discussion may hence, be academic. It is therefore unnecessary to express any final opinion on the general question raised. I should also like to add that the unreported decision of His Lordship the Chief Justice in S. A. 147 of 1948 has been brought to our notice. The question that has arisen before us is not exactly that which was dealt with by His Lordship in that judgment; nor did the same question arise in the case in --'Aditya Prasad v. Parmananda Patel', 4 Pat LJ 505. Whether the incident of transferability can be created by virtue pf a contract in the case of an ordinary tenant is a matter also upon which it is unnecessary for us to express any final opinion in this case.