JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - This is an appeal by the Plaintiff against the concurrent decisions of the two Courts below dismissing the Plaintiff's suit for ejectment of the transferee of a sikimi tenant from two homestead plots 1283 and 1284. These two plots were transferred by Defendant 1 who is the recorded Sikimi tenant, to Defendant 2 by virtue of a registered sale deed Ext. A/1 dated 23-3-49. On the 10th April, 1949, the Plaintiff instituted the present suit for evicting the Defendants. 2. Both the Courts below have held that after the amendment of Section 236 of the Orissa Tenancy Act in the year 1946 by Orissa Act, X of 1946, the incidents of the tenancy of any tenant in respect of the homestead in which such tenant ordinarily resides shall be regulated by the provisions of Orissa Tenancy Act applicable to land held by an occupancy tenant. One of the incidents of such land being transferability, the Courts below have held that the transfer is valid in law, and cannot be challenged and the transferee cannot. 3. Mr. A.K. Das, the learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that reading the sections 3 and 4, of Act X of 1946 as a whole, the only legitimate conclusion that one arrives at is that the right conferred upon a tenant in respect of his homestead land is that he shall not be liable to ejectment; but the other incidents of land held by an occupancy raiyat cannot be said to be attached to such tenant. The amended Section 236 came to be construed by a Division Bench of this Court in Dina Bhoi v. Jagannath Patioshi 15 C.L.T. 111. Their Lordships held that under sub-section (1) of Section 236 of the Orissa Tenancy Act as amended by Act X of 1946, occupancy rights are conferred on a tenant in respect of his homestead in which he ordinarily resides. In a later case Banamali Behera and Ors. v. Padmanav Misra 18 C.L.T. 118, Panigrahi, J. (as my Lord then was) construed the amended Section 236 and held that "for the purpose of the Act, all homesteads are put on the same footing as agricultural tenancies and the relationship between the landlord and tenant which had formerly been regulated by custom and usage has been declared to be regulated by the law applicable to occupancy raiyats." Mr. Das builds up an argument on the language of Section 4, and contends that the Act was made retrospective with regard to the non-liability for ejectment in respect of pending proceedings and that clearly shows that the intention of the legislature was that only the right to remain on the laud and not to be ejected on a mere notice to quit, was conferred by the amending Act of 1946. In my opinion the argument is based upon a fallacy. The retrospectively was extended to cases of pending suits where, for example, a transferee from an under-raiyat had been sued for ejectment before the passing of the Act. But that does not mean that the only right conferred upon the under-tenant in respect of his homestead was the right not to be ejected or the right of heritability. The language of Section 3, Clause 1) of Act X of 1946, makes it perfectly clear as has been pointed out in the Division Bench cases referred to above, that all the rights of an occupancy tenant are attached to the tenancy of a tenant in respect of his homestead where he ordinarily resides. One such incident of occupancy rights is the right of transferability, and therefore, it must be held that after passing of the Act a tenant has the right to transfer his homestead where he ordinarily resides by virtue of the amended Section 236 of the Act. 3. In my opinion the Courts below rightly held that the suit should be dismissed; and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 4. I agree. 5. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed