This is an appeal under R. 190 of the Rules relating to fisheries framed under chap. X of Part vi of the Assam Land Revenue Manual, directed against an order of the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, dated 14-11-50, by ''which he cancelled the fishing rights of the appel­lant Hamid Beza Majumdar with whom the fishery No. 2 situated in Siver Barak was settled, for contravention of the terms of the lease in that the appellant had parted with his fishing rights in favour of one Abdul Waheb for a sum of Es. 3400, and had allowed Abdul Waned to fish with a specified type of a fishing net for a sum exceeding the sum which is permissible under the rules. [a] It is contended by Mr. Choudhuri for the appellant that the learned A. D. G. has errone­ously relied upon the document purporting to grant a leave of the fishery for 12 months, in that the document required to be registered was not registered. I do not think that the question of the validity of the lease has anything to do with the powers of a D 0. to cancel the lease if he finds as a fact that the lessee has parted with the fishery for a consideration whether by way of sale or lease. [3] In this case, the learned D C. has relied upon the evidence of the lessee given in some other proceedings wherein he had stated that he had parted with his fishing rights for a sum of Rs. 3,400. The learned D. C. was entitled to act upon this statement and regard the lessee's action as a breach of the terms of the settlement. If Mr. Choudhuri's contention, to which I have referred, were to prevail, the terms of a fishery settlement can be broken with impunity by the grantee deliberately executing a legally ineffective sale or lease with the connivance of the vendee or lessee. I am not concerned with the rights of the grantee in relation to his lessee or purchaser or vice versa, but with the powers of the D. C. to cancel a grant of fishery if ha finds that the terms of .the grant have, in fact, been contravened. I am "satisfied that the learned D. C. has in this case properly exercised his powers in the matter of the cancellation of the settlement with the appellant. I am "satisfied that the learned D. C. has in this case properly exercised his powers in the matter of the cancellation of the settlement with the appellant. [4] It was next contended by Mr. Choudhuri that assuming that there was a sale or lease, it was not a sale or lease for the entire period of the settlement, but limited to a year, and that the transaction, therefore, cannot be regarded as a breach of the conditions of the grant itself. I am unable to accept this contention. Section 105, T. P. Act defines a lease. The transfer of a right to enjoy property for consideration for what so ever time, is a lease. It makes no difference that in a sub lease the period is less than the period of the original lease. In this view, I maintain the order of the learned A. D. C., Cachar, and dis­miss the appeal with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.