MEHROTRA. C. J. : This appeal is by the plaintiff Briefly The fads are that the plaintiff is the Doli representing The Kamakhya Temple Lands were granted lo Kamakhya Temple for its maintenance by the Ahom Kings at different limes The Government also had granted Lakheraj pattas in favour of the Tem­ple in respect of these lands II is not disputed that The Doloi manages the property of the temple and has got the right to settle the land of the temple. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 art grandsons of one late Keshab Chandra Barua. Plaintiff admits that in the year 1319 B. S. the then Doloi of the temple settled 4 B. 3 K. 5 L. of land belonging to the temple with Keshab Chandra Barua whose heirs are defendants Nos. 1 to 3. The lease was given to Keshab Chandra Barua to establish a ' Siba Mandir' and for con­struction of an ' Atithisala' for pilgrims and ' sannyasis '. The allegation of the plaintiff in the plaint is that no ' Siba Mandir' or ' Atithi sala ' was established by Keshab Chandra Barni. On the other hand defendants Nos 1 to 3 gave a sub-lease of a portion of the land to defendant No 4 who has constructed a house for his business. As the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had no right to sub-lease the land, the lease is forfeiled and plaintiff has claimed a decree for recovery of possession over the suit land by ejectment of the defendants. (2) The case of the defendants Nos. I to 3 and No. 4 is that the land was settled with Keshab Chandra Barua for one hundred years and the defendants' predecessor established the 'Silia Mandir' and also conslrucled a Dharmsala. There is no bar in the lease to sublease The land and thus defendants Nos 1 to 3 were competent to sublet The land The defendants furl her aver that They have been paying the mil agreed upon They sent by money order the rent to the plaintiff Doloi but he refused to accept The suit is for recovery of possession There is no prayer for cancellation of the lease (3) 'I he trial court on consideration of The evidence dismissed The suit (3) Mr. Goswami who appears for the appellant, has urged three points before us. Goswami who appears for the appellant, has urged three points before us. It is firstly contended that The Doloi is not competent lo execute a lease of the property to inure beyond the life time of the Doloi particularly when The lease is not beneficial to the temple The first answer to this contention is that there is no prayer for cancellation of the lease on The ground I hat it was executed by The predecessor of the plaintiff who was not competent to do so. so as to he valid beyond his lifetime Secondly it is slated both in The Kabuliyal and The patta and also it appears from The evidence that al The lime when the lease was executed. The land was forest land and was of no use lo the temple Under those circumstances if the lease was given for the purpose of establishing a "Siba ' temple and for The construction of a Dharmasala even on a nominal rent it cannot he said that the lease was not for the benefit of the temple The joint was really not pressed also before the court below, as will appear from the judgment of the trial court In any view of the matter it cannot be said that the Doloi was not com pele.nl to execute the lease (5) It is then contended that The lessee has no right lo sublease the land There is no express prohibition in the lease itself and the lessee acquires an interest in the land leased to him The lessee is competent in the absence of any provision in the lease to the contrary under section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act to sublet the land. Mr. Goswami contends mat the object of the lease was to construct a Dharmasala and to establish a ' Siva ' temple. That being the object, the subletting for the purpose of making constructions amounts to violation of the conditions of the lease and sub­letting it was not consistent with the object of the lease itself. We do not think that there is any force in this contention also. The land was settled with Keshab Chandra Barua, because he had undertaken to erect a temple and a Dharmasala on the land. We do not think that there is any force in this contention also. The land was settled with Keshab Chandra Barua, because he had undertaken to erect a temple and a Dharmasala on the land. But it cannot be said that by subletting the land the lessee had not carried out the object of the lease or has done something which is contrary to the object of the lease It is contended by Mr. Goswami that the lessee had forfeited the lease inasmuch as he had broken the condition of the lease, namely to erect a temple and to construct a Dharmasala on this land. S. Ill (r) (1) of the Transfer of Properly Act provides that a lease of immoveable properly determines by forfeiture, that is to say in case the lessee breaks any express condition which provides that, on breach thereof, the lessor may re-enter. There is no express condition of re-entry in the event of The lessee subletting the land. Thus it can­not be said that there was any forfeiture in the present case. Moreover, in the absence of any express condition to the effect that the lessee will not be allowed to sublet it cannot be said that there was any express condition of which the lessee has committed a breach (6) Thirdly it is urged by Mr. Goswanii that from the evidence on the record the defendant is have not succeeded in proving the fact that any temple was established on the land and that any Dharamsala was constructed The Doloi has examined himself As against that defendants have examined one of the defendant and the Pujari who was doing the Puja in The temple itself There is no reason to do believe the statement of the Pujari and of one of the defendants produced in the case (7) 11 was lastly contended by Mr. Goswami that no payment of rent was made by the defendants and thus the defendants have committed breach of the terms of the lease it­self No such issue has been raised Beside this, it is not denied that during the life-time-of the predecessor of the plaintiff rent was paid by The defendants. Goswami that no payment of rent was made by the defendants and thus the defendants have committed breach of the terms of the lease it­self No such issue has been raised Beside this, it is not denied that during the life-time-of the predecessor of the plaintiff rent was paid by The defendants. During the tenure of office of Doloiship by the plaintiff the defendants' case is that they paid rent sometimes to Banshi nath Doloi on two occasions Subsequently the defendants sent the rent which was refused by She plaintiff The plaintiff has denied the receipt of the money order by which the rent was sent. But he has admitted that one Banshi Doloi was a joint Doloi with the plaintiff and some rent was paid to him. who granted receipts which are marked Exts B and C in this case. It cannot, therefore, be said under these circumstances that the defendants committee! any breach of the conditions of the lease and they failed to pay the rent of the land as fix ed in the lease itself In the view which we have taken, it is not necessary to refer to any authority. Mr. Goswami has, however, referred to the cases of Shankaracharya of Sankesh-war Math v. C. G. Malappa reported in AIR 1940 Bom 112 and Ram Charan Das v. Nau-rangi Lai, reported in 60 Ind App 124 : (AIR 1938 PC 76) in support of his contention that the Doloi has got no power to transfer the properly of The temple so as to be effective beyond his life-time. These two cases relate If) the transfer by a Mahant of a Math and the question involved in those cases was one of limitation. In the present case it cannot he disputed that the temple to which the property belonged, had (o act through some Manager and the Doloi had power to lease the property our behalf of the temple. This was not dial 'Tenged also by the plaintiff as will appear from The decision of the Court below. In our opinion the appeal has no force and it is dismissed with cost. Defendants will lip entitled to one set of cost only. Appeal dismissed