JUDGMENT Allsop, Ag. C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage dated 17th December 1929. The property mortgaged consisted of houses. The mortgagees claimed the benefits of the Agriculturists' Relief Act and the question was whether they were agriculturists on the date of the execution of the mortgage. Their claim was based on the fact that they were on that date the usufructuary mortgagees from fixed rate tenants of certain plots in the fixed-rate tenancy. In so far it is relevant for the purposes of this appeal, the definition of an agriculturist in the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934, is a person who pays rent for agricultural land not exceeding Rs. 500 per annum. It is not disputed that the rent of the fixed-rate tenancy was less than Rs. 500 per annum. Learned counsel, however, has argued that a usufructuary mortgagee of a fixed rate tenancy is not himself a fixed-rate tenant and that he does not pay rent on his own behalf but merely as an agent of the mortgagor. He has relied on the case of B. Saudagar Singh and Another Vs. Ganga Singh and Others, AIR 1921 All 110 . The learned Judges in that case argued, in the first place, that the mortgage of a tenancy does not extinguish it and, secondly, that a contract of mortgage between a mortgagor and a mortgagee cannot of itself create a contract with a third person and there is no contractual relationship between the mortgagee and the zamindar. With the greatest deference to the opinion of the learned Judges, I think that they overlooked the point that a fixed-rate tenancy is transferable under the law and that a fixed-rate tenant by an act of transfer can substitute another tenant in his place. Nobody would doubt that the landlord himself could by an act of transfer create a relationship of landlord and tenant between his transferee and his tenant. In the same way, where the tenancy is transferable, the tenant, by an act of transfer, can create such a relationship between the landlord and his transferee. It is true that a mortgage does not transfer the whole of the mortgagor's interest in the property mortgaged but such parts of the interest as are transferable vest for the time in the mortgagee. It is true that a mortgage does not transfer the whole of the mortgagor's interest in the property mortgaged but such parts of the interest as are transferable vest for the time in the mortgagee. In the case of a usufructuary mortgage, in the absence of a [special contract, the mortgagee is bound to pay the rent and is entitled to claim the rights of 'the tenant in possession as against the landlord while the mortgage subsists. In view of the definition in the Agriculturists' Relief Act, however, we are not really concerned with the question whether the mortgagee can properly be described as a fixed-rate tenant. He is undoubtedly the person who pays the rent for the holding. It is not denied in this case that the usufructuary mortgagees did in fact pay the rent and they certainly paid it in their own right as mortgagees and not merely as agents of the mortgagor. I have no doubt, therefore, that they were agriculturists within the meaning of the definition in the Agriculturists' Relief Act and that they were rightly allowed the benefits of that Act. The learned Judge of the Court below gave those benefits and the result is that the appeal should fail. I would dismiss it with costs. Verma J. 2. I entirely agree and have nothing to add. Malik J. 3. I agree. 4. We dismiss the appeal with costs.