JUDGMENT 1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order by which the Court below has refused an application made by the Petitioner under sub-sec. 3 of sec. 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It appears that the land-lords in execution of a decree for rent against their tenants were about to bring to sale the defaulting tenures. Thereupon the present Petitioner applied under sub-sec. 3 of sec. 170 as a person who had taken a sub-lease from the judgment-debtors on the 24th February 1889 and who had thus acquired an interest in the tenure voidable on the sale. The Court below has held that his position is that of an under-raiyat and that he is not entitled to apply under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 170. It is not disputed that on the 22nd November 1859 the landlords granted a lease to the predecessor-in-interest of the judgment-debtors. The interest thus created was transferred on the 23rd May 1809 to persons from whom the judgment-debtors have derived title. The question raised before us relates to the nature of the interest created by the lease of the 22nd November 1859. It has been found that the lease was for agricultural purposes; and it has also been held that the status of the tenant was that of a raiyat. The only point for determination is whether the grantee became a raiyat at a fixed rate of rent. In our opinion, there is no room for controversy that the grantee was a raiyat at a fixed rate of rent. The lease states explicitly that it was granted upon a rent of Es. 5 a year, that the tenant would enjoy the land from generation to generation and that the landlord would not claim more rent than what was settled. It is clear, therefore, that the lessee was a raiyat at a fixed rate of rent. Consequently under sec. 18 of the Bengal Tenancy Act his interest was subject to the same provisions with respect to the transfer of and succession to the holding, as that of a permanent tenure-holder. Now, sec. 11 provides that every permanent tenure shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, be capable of being transferred and bequeathed "in the same manner and to the same extent as other immoveable property. Now, sec. 11 provides that every permanent tenure shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, be capable of being transferred and bequeathed "in the same manner and to the same extent as other immoveable property. The Court below has held that the term " transfer " as used in sec.11 or sec..18 does not include a lease. In our opinion, there is no foundation for this view. A lease is a transfer of an interest in immoveable property and there is no good reason why a permanent tenure-holder or a raiyat at fixed rate of rent should be held competent to alienate absolutely the tenure or holding, and, at the same time be deemed to be under a disability in so far as the grant of a sub-lease is concerned. The Court below has held that if this view is adopted, sec, 85 cannot be reconciled with sec. 18. But it is plain that the proper method of construction is to hold that the provisions of sec. 85 are subject to those of sec. 18; in other words that sec. 85 has no application to a case where sec. 18 applies. In the case before us, as the lessor of the Petitioner was a raiyat at a fixed rate of rent, the sub-lease granted by him on the 24th February 1889, is not subject to the operation of sec. 85. Consequently the interest created in favour of the Applicant in 1889, is a valid interest, and as it is liable to be avoided on the sale to be held at the instance of the superior landlord, it is competent to the Petitioner to seek protection under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. 2. The result is that this Rule is made absolute, the order of the Court below discharged, and the application made by the Petitioner to that Court granted. We make no order as to costs.