JUDGMENT B. K. Mukherjea, J. - This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff, and it arises out of a suit commenced by him in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of 24 Parganas for establishment of his title to the lands described in the plaint with a prayer for recovery of possession of the kha schedule property and for confirmation of possession in respect of the ka schedule lands. 2. The plaintiff's case is that the lands in suit appertained to Sundarban Lot No. 25 which was owned by one Baroda Prosad Choudhury. One Kedar Bhuttacherji held the land as a tenant under Baroda. Kedar defaulted in the payment of rent and the landlord having obtained a rent decree against him put up the tenure to sale in execution of the decree and purchased it himself. The landlord then let out the land in permanent mokurari right to one Puspamoni by a potta, dated 26th Agrahayan 1326, B. S. (12th December 1919) on a selami of Rs. 1800 and a yearly rental of Rs. 2-8-0 per bigha. Puspamoni could only pay a sum of Rs. 200 out of the selami money, and for the balance executed an instalment bond in favour of the landlord. On 17th Chaitra 1328, B. S. (31st March 1922) Puspamoni sold her interest to the present plaintiff, and the latter paid to the landlord the arrears of rent as well as the balance of the selami money due to him. 3. After some years, the plaintiff also defaulted in the payment of rent, and the Court of Wards who had taken charge of the landlord's property started a certificate case against Puspamoni alone for recovery of the arrears of rent due in respect to the tenure without making the plaintiff a party to the proceeding. In execution of this certificate, the tenure was sold and purchased by the landlord on 30th October 1988. The plaintiff avers that after his purchase, the landlord, defendant 1, dispossessed the plaintiff from the kha schedule lands with the help of defendants 2 and 4. As regards the ka schedule lands, the allegation is that defendant 1 obtained a collusive document through defendant 3 who is a son of the plaintiff. The plaintiff avers that after his purchase, the landlord, defendant 1, dispossessed the plaintiff from the kha schedule lands with the help of defendants 2 and 4. As regards the ka schedule lands, the allegation is that defendant 1 obtained a collusive document through defendant 3 who is a son of the plaintiff. As Puspamoni had no interest in the tenure when the certificate for rent was obtained by the landlord, and the plaintiff who was the real tenant was not made a party to the proceeding, the certificate sale, it is alleged, did not affect the title of the plaintiff, and the auction purchaser did not acquire any right by his purchase. On these allegations, the plaintiff prayed for khas possession of the lands described in schedule kha to the plaint and for confirmation of possession in respect to the ka schedule property. 4. The suit was contested by defendants 1 and 2, and the contention raised primarily on their behalf was that under the terms of the potta granted to Puspamoni, whenever there was a transfer of the tenure, the transferee was bound to pay one-fourth of the market price of the land in order to obtain recognition of his tenancy by the landlord. As the plaintiff did not pay this amount, the landlord did not and was not bound to, recognise him as a tenant and was entitled to proceed against Puspamoni who was not absolved from her liability to pay rent. The certificate against Puspamoni was, therefore, a valid certificate for rent, and the sale in execution of the same passed the entire tenure to the purchaser. 5. The trial Court negatived this defence, and decreed the plaintiff's suit being of opinion that the term in the potta referred to above did not restrict the lessee's right of transfer in any way, but simply provided for payment of chouth by the transferee. The landlord, therefore, could very well realise the amount of chouth from the purchaser as a money claim but could not refuse to recognise the transfer. The plaintiff was, thus, a necessary party to the certificate proceeding, and the sale in execution of the certificate against Puspamoni did not affect his title. 6. On appeal by the defendants, the decision of the trial Court was reversed by the Additional District Judge of 24 Parganas. The plaintiff was, thus, a necessary party to the certificate proceeding, and the sale in execution of the certificate against Puspamoni did not affect his title. 6. On appeal by the defendants, the decision of the trial Court was reversed by the Additional District Judge of 24 Parganas. It has been held by the learned Judge that under the terms of the potta, the payment of chouth was a condition precedent to the recognition of the transferee as a tenant, and as the plaintiff admittedly did not fulfil this condition, no title accrued to him by virtue of the assignment in his favour by Puspamoni. It is against this decision that the plaintiff has come up on second appeal to this Court. 7. Dr. Pal, on behalf of the appellant, has argued before us that as under Para. 9 of the potta, free and unrestricted rights of the transfer are given to the tenant, Para. 15 of the document which provides for payment of chouth by the transferee is merely a covenant which might be enforceable against the purchaser of the tenure as a covenant running with the land, but it did not affect the validity of the transfer and could not be a condition precedent to the acquisition of title by the transferee. On the other hand, Mr. Khagendra Nath Ganguli and Mr. Paresh Nath Mukherjee (Jr.) who appeared for the two respondents took up the position that the provision relating to the payment of chouth occurring in para. 15 of the lease was a restrictive condition attached to the recognition of the transferee as a tenant by the landlord, and so long as this condition was not fulfilled, the old tenant was not absolved from his liability to pay rent. 8. To decide the point, it will be necessary to turn to the material portion of para. 15 of the potta which runs as follows : In case of transfer of the land and the jama, the transferee shall be bound to pay one-fourth of the proper market price of the land as the fees for having his name registered in the sherista. 9. It may be pointed out at the beginning that this is no covenant by the lessee to do any thing or perform any obligation in case she transferred her interest to any other person. 9. It may be pointed out at the beginning that this is no covenant by the lessee to do any thing or perform any obligation in case she transferred her interest to any other person. The obligation to pay chouth is imposed upon the transferee who is not a party to the contract at all. There can be no question, therefore, of a clause like this being treated as a covenant running with the land which may be enforced against an assignee : vide 42 C. W. N. 832 Sridhar Chandra Roy v. Kusum Kumari ('38) 25 A. I. R. 1938 Cal. 478 :177 I. C. 777: 42 C. W. N. 832. A promise by the lessee to pay any sum of money to the landlord when he transfers his interest to anybody else can certainly be treated as a covenant imposing a partial restriction upon the lessee's rights of transfer. A breach of such a covenant will not make an assignment invalid, but the landlord, if he so chooses can enforce the covenant against the assignee; or if he has reserved any right of re-entry in himself, can put an end to the lease. These principles which are well established by authorities have no application to the facts of this case where there was no covenant by the lessee at all. We cannot, therefore, accept the contention of the appellant, that the remedy of the landlord was to sue the transferee for recovery of the chouth. 10. The question that really requires consideration in the present case is whether the provision in para. 15 of the potta can be regarded as a condition attached to the recognition of the transferee as a tenant by the landlord. There is no doubt that the tenure in the present case is a transferable one. Ordinarily, as soon as a transfer of a permanent tenure is completed with all the formalities required by S. 12, Bengal Tenancy Act, the liability of the original tenant to pay rent ceases, and there is a statutory obligation on the part of the lessor to treat the transferee as a tenant. Ordinarily, as soon as a transfer of a permanent tenure is completed with all the formalities required by S. 12, Bengal Tenancy Act, the liability of the original tenant to pay rent ceases, and there is a statutory obligation on the part of the lessor to treat the transferee as a tenant. But the original tenant may still remain liable for payment of rent if there is any condition in the lease that his liability will not cease and the transferee will not be recognised as a tenant unless a transfer fee is paid by the transferee or certain other conditions are fulfilled. The lessor has the right to withhold from the lessee the power to assign absolutely, and so he can make the power to assign subject to a condition and stipulate that any purported assignment which does not fulfil the condition shall not be valid; vide 42 C. W. N. 832 Sridhar Chandra Roy v. Kusum Kumari ('38) 25 A. I. R. 1938 Cal. 478 :177 I. C. 777: 42 C. W. N. 832 referred to above. 11. The whole point for our consideration is whether there is such a condition in the present case. In our opinion, the answer to the question should be in the affirmative. On the side of the appellant, stress is laid on the fact that there is no provision in para. 15 of the potta to the effect that if the chouth is not paid by the transferee, the assignment will not be valid. We think that a default clause is not very material in the present case. Under Para. 15 of the potta, the chouth is to be paid by the transferee in order to have his name registered in the sherista of the landlord. We agree with the respondents that the language of the document makes it perfectly clear that the transferee will not be recognised as a tenant and his name will not be registered in the sherista of the landlord unless and until this money is paid. As has been said already, there is no covenant here by the lessee to pay any money to the landlord, in case of alienation which the law may enforce against the alienee. As has been said already, there is no covenant here by the lessee to pay any money to the landlord, in case of alienation which the law may enforce against the alienee. The landlord, it seems, kept the power entirely in his own hands, and made payment of chouth by the assignee a condition precedent to his being recognised as a tenant. Indirectly, an obligation is imposed upon the transferor to see that the chouth is paid by the assignee, for so long as it is not paid, his own liability to pay rent does not cease. 12. In our opinion, the Court of appeal below has taken a right view in holding that the provision relating to the payment of chouth was a condition precedent to the transferee being treated as a tenant by the landlord, and as the purchaser did not admittedly pay the chouth, the certificate proceedings against the old tenant were perfectly valid and conferred a good title upon the purchaser. 13. The result is that this appeal is dismissed with costs. The hearing fee will be divided equally between the appearing respondents. Sharpe, J. 14. I agree.