JUDGMENT Sinha, J. - This is an appeal from a judgment of Chatterjee, J., dated September 24, 1948, whereby he dismissed the Plaintiff's suit. The facts giving rise to the suit are as follows:-- The Plaintiff is a monthly tenant under the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who are trustees of a certain trust estate. As such monthly tenant the Plaintiff had been paying rent to the trustees at the rate of Rs. 240 per month. On February 7, 1948, the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as trustees of the trust estate granted a lease for twenty-one years to the Defendant No. 3 of the reversion at a rent of Rs. 300 plus municipal taxes. The suit was filed by the Plaintiff for a declaration that he is the lessee of premises No. 50, Burtolla Street under the trustees and not under the lessee of the reversion, the Defendant No. 3. The Plaintiff also claimed injunction and other reliefs. 2. The only question before the learned Judge was a question of law, namely, whether the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, after having granted the monthly tenancy in favour of the Plaintiff, were competent to lease out the reversion to the Defendant No. 3. It was contended on behalf of the Plaintiff that a lease of the reversion was invalid in India, though it was perfectly legal in England. The learned Judge considered this contention and held against it and dismissed the suit. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attention to sec. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act and contends that once an owner of property leases it out it is not competent for him to lease out the reversion because of the definition of lease contained in sec. 105. He urges that by the lease the right to enjoy the property has been transferred and nothing remains in the landlord which on a further lease made can be enjoyed. The definition of lease in sec. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, therefore, shows that there cannot be a lease of the reversion. 4. It is difficult for me to follow this argument. It is admitted that reversion is immovable property. It is also admitted that a reversion can be transferred. A lease is only a mode of transfer whereby an interest in the property is carved out by the lessor in favour of the lessee. 4. It is difficult for me to follow this argument. It is admitted that reversion is immovable property. It is also admitted that a reversion can be transferred. A lease is only a mode of transfer whereby an interest in the property is carved out by the lessor in favour of the lessee. It is admitted that the reversion can be assigned and can be mortgaged, but it is contended that it cannot be leased. It is quite clear to the that the reversion being immovable property and there being no prohibition anywhere in law against lease of such property, is transferable by way of lease. The authorities are all against the contention of the Appellant. The learned Judge has referred to some of the authorities in his judgment.* Reference may be made to the case of Manickram Pillai v. Ratnasami Nadar (83 M. L. J. 684 (1929)) which is directly in point. It was held in that case that there was an outstanding monthly tenancy at the time of the grant of a term for twenty years in favour of a certain person. It is competent to that person to give a valid notice to quit to the monthly tenant of the premises and to eject the latter on the expiry of the period prescribed by such notice. In my opinion, there is nothing in the terms of sec. 105 which prohibits or prevents the leasing out of a reversion. 5. The result is that the appeal will be dismissed with costs. 6. Certified for two Counsel. The stay of the suit in the Small Cause Court is vacated and the sums paid to the Respondents' solicitors may now be accepted towards the rent falling due whilst this appeal was pending. The undertaking given by the Respondents' solicitors is dissolved. Harries, C.J. I agree.