JUDGMENT Pathak, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit for possession over the site of a certain house by demolition of the structures existing on that site and for recovery of Rs. 5-4-0 on account of the use and occupation of the said site. To that suit Allahdia was originally impleaded as a defendant and after his death which took place during the pendency of the suit Abdul Rashid was impleaded as the mutwalli and later on the waqf was also added in the array of defendants. The plaintiff's case is that he is the owner of the site in question of which Allahdia was the tenant on behalf of the plaintiff on a monthly rent of annas four and as the said Allahdia made a waqf of the house he forfeited his tenancy rights. In defence, the title of the plaintiff to the site in question was admitted but it was averred that Allahdia was a permanent lessee and, as such, he was competent to make the waqf. Mt was further urged that the plaintiff accepted rent from the defendants with full knowledge of the waqf and was consequently estopped from challenging the waqf. In the Court of first instance, it was conceded on behalf of the plaintiff that Allahdiya was a permanent lessee but it was contended that his rights were inalienable. Upon the question as to whether the rights of Allahdia were transferable or not that Court came to the conclusion that although the lease in question was created prior to the passing of the Transfer of Property Act the law applicable to such leases is the same as has been laid down in S. 108 (j), T.P. Act and for this proposition reliance was placed upon the ruling,, L. Joti Prasad and Others Vs. B. Har Prasad, AIR 1932 All 473 Upon the question of the effect of acceptance of rent by the plaintiff after the creation of the waqf the Court of the first instance was of the opinion that even if there had been any forfeiture on the ground alleged by the plaintiff, it had been waived. In the result, that Court dismissed the claim for possession over the site but decreed the claim for arrears of rent. From this decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the lower appellate Court. In the result, that Court dismissed the claim for possession over the site but decreed the claim for arrears of rent. From this decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the lower appellate Court. That Court, in its turn, reached the conclusion that the creation of the waqf did not entail a forfeiture of the tenancy. It also affirmed the finding of the Court of first instance on the question of waiver of forfeiture. From this decree of the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff has come up in appeal to this Court. 2. The arguments which had been advanced before the Courts below have been reiterated before me and it has been contended that a permanent lease created before the passing of the Transfer of Property Act does not confer transferable rights upon the lessee. For this proposition, reliance is placed upon the rulings reported in Safar Ali Mia Vs. Abdul Rasid Khan and Others, AIR 1924 Cal 1012 and Bansi Singh and Others Vs. Chakradhar Prasad and Others, AIR 1938 Patna 569 On behalf of the respondent, it has been contended that the law relating to homestead land in Bengal is peculiar and is not applicable to the present case. Reference has been made by Mr. Panna Lal Khattri to Mulla's Transfer of Property Act, Edn. 2, pages 611 and 612 where it is stated that: In English law a tenant can, as an ordinary incident of the estate granted to him, both assign his term and create sub-tenancies and except as to some non-transferable agricultural tenancies, this has been the law in India both before and after the Act. 3. This statement of the law is in accord with the ruling reported in L. Joti Prasad and Others Vs. B. Har Prasad, AIR 1932 All 473 where a Bench consisting of Pullan and Niamat Ullah JJ. held that S. 108 (j), T.P. Act, merely enacted the pre-existing law. Sitting singly I am bound to follow this decision and it is not necessary for me to discuss the question at length. Muttusami Ayyar J. observed in [Appa Rau v. Subbana] (90) 13 Mad. 60 that in the absence of a covenant not to assign, a tenancy is presumably a saleable interest. He also observed that S. 108, T.P. Act, only declared the law as previously administered. Muttusami Ayyar J. observed in [Appa Rau v. Subbana] (90) 13 Mad. 60 that in the absence of a covenant not to assign, a tenancy is presumably a saleable interest. He also observed that S. 108, T.P. Act, only declared the law as previously administered. The policy of the law is to promote free alienation of property and transferability of property is the general rule. In the absence of some provision of law or custom having the force of law prohibiting transfer, all rights in property are transferable. Leasehold interest is property and, therefore, was alienable even before the Transfer of Property Act as there was no rule of law imposing restriction upon such a transfer. With regard to the rulings of the Calcutta High Court relating to tenancy of homestead land created before the passing of the Transfer of Property Act, Sir Dinsbah Mulla, in the Transfer of Property Act, Edn. 2, page 612, states that such tenancies are not transferable except by custom. I am in agreement with this observation and for this reason, in my opinion, the view taken in Safar Ali Mia Vs. Abdul Rasid Khan and Others, AIR 1924 Cal 1012 has no application to the present case. Some argument was advanced upon the question of the nature of a whqf under the Muhammedan law. The definition of waqf contained in the Waqfs Act may be accepted as representing the meaning now attached to the word in the Courts. In that Act waqf has been defined as meaning a permanent dedication by a person professing the Mussalman faith of any property for any purpose recognised by the Mussalman law as religious, pious or charitable. The Almighty being a juristic person, the dedication in his favour has been treated as a transfer governed by the ordinary law of transfer [see Ahmad Husain Vs. Kallu Mian Sajhi firm, AIR 1929 All 277 I am not satisfied that a waqf created by a tenant is such a dealing with the property as to entail a forfeiture of tenancy. Learned counsel for the appellant then argued that the finding on the question of waiver of forfeiture is vitiated. Kallu Mian Sajhi firm, AIR 1929 All 277 I am not satisfied that a waqf created by a tenant is such a dealing with the property as to entail a forfeiture of tenancy. Learned counsel for the appellant then argued that the finding on the question of waiver of forfeiture is vitiated. I am unable to accept this contention as nothing has been shown to me to persuade me to hold that the finding that the rent was accepted by the plaintiff after the alleged forfeiture with full knowledge of the fact that the waqf had been made was arrived at on a misreading of evidence. That finding being based upon evidence on the record is binding upon me. For the reasons seated above, I am of opinion that there is no substance in this appeal and I, therefore, dismiss it with costs. Leave to file an appeal under the Letters Patent is prayed for by learned counsel for the appellant and is refused.