Sub-lease classification turns on the sub-lease's purpose, not the head tenancy; long possession alone creates no permanent tenancy.

The governing statute for a sub-lease depends on the purpose of the sub-lease itself, not on the nature of the original tenancy. Where the sub-lease is not for agricultural purposes, the Transfer of Property Act applies and the character of the head lease does not control. Section 18 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 does not bar a suit where only land was let and any structures were raised by the occupants. Long possession alone does not create a permanent tenancy; in the absence of a valid lease, the tenancy is regulated by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicability of the Bihar Tenancy Act or the Transfer of Property Act to a sub-lease depends on the purpose for which the sub-lease is created or on the nature of the original tenancy. (ii) Whether Section 18 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 bars the suit. (iii) Whether long possession conferred a right of permanent tenancy on the defendants.

Issue (i): Whether the applicability of the Bihar Tenancy Act or the Transfer of Property Act to a sub-lease depends on the purpose for which the sub-lease is created or on the nature of the original tenancy.

Analysis: The definitions and scheme of the Bihar Tenancy Act show that the status of raiyat and under-raiyat is tied to the purpose of holding land for agriculture. Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act makes the lease chapter inapplicable only to leases for agricultural purposes, so the governing statute for a sub-lease must be determined by the purpose of that sub-lease itself. The contrary view, which treated the character of the head lease as controlling, was held to overlook the statutory language and was found inconsistent with the scheme of both enactments.

Conclusion: The controlling test is the purpose of the sub-lease, not the nature of the original tenancy. The earlier contrary decisions were overruled.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 18 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 bars the suit.

Analysis: The finding below was that the land, and not a building, was settled with the defendants and that the tatti structures were constructed by them. The control legislation did not apply to a case where only land was let out. The defendants' inconsistent stand before the House Controller also negatived this objection.

Conclusion: Section 18 did not bar the suit.

Issue (iii): Whether long possession conferred a right of permanent tenancy on the defendants.

Analysis: The defendants' own case admitted a landlord-tenant relationship with the predecessors of the plaintiffs. In the absence of a valid lease in their favour, the duration of the tenancy had to be governed by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and mere long possession could not create permanent tenancy.

Conclusion: The defendants acquired no right of permanent tenancy.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the dismissal of the suit was set aside, and the suit was decreed with costs throughout.

Ratio Decidendi: For a sub-lease, the applicable statute depends on the purpose for which the sub-lease is created; where the lease is not for agricultural purposes, the Transfer of Property Act applies, and the character of the head lease does not control the sub-lease.

---