( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition has questioned the order parsed by the Land Tribunal, Kalaghatgi rejecting his application to register him as the occupant of the land bearing Sy. No. 2 measuring 4 acres and situate at Tambur village. ( 2 ) THE petitioner claims that he was the tenant in occupation of the said land on the relevant date. Respondent-2 who was the legal representative and daughter of Somappa Dyamanna Barigidad to whom the land belonged, contended that the petitioner was not a tenant and therefore he was not entitled to be registered as the occupant. In his statement before the Tribunal, the petitioner stated as follows: From the statement extracted above it is clear that the petitioner got into possession of the land in question under undu biduva karara agava lavani. It is also admitted by him that the said contract came to an end in 1969-70. It is further stated sadari jameena 69-70 kke bidabekagiddu bittilla. From the foregoing it is clear that the agreement between the owner and the petitioner did not bring about the relationship of landlord and tenant. We are familiar in this part of the country with transactions known as illibhogya which are in the nature of mortgages. They are similar in their nature and incidents to zuripeshgi leases which are prevalent in northern India. The transaction in question is in the nature of an 'ilibhogya' ( 3 ) IT is well settled that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act do not apply to all types of transactions which are prevailing in India. From the preamble to the Act it is clear that it was intended to deal with only certain kinds of transfers. Transactions lika 'zuripeshgi' leases, 'ilibhogya' etc. are not expressly dealt with by the provisions of the Transfer of Property act. It is also well settled that in respect of transfers which are not governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, the courts should apply the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. While rejecting the contention that zuripeshgi' lease was a lease the Judicial committee of the Privy Council observed in Bengal Indico Company Ltd. v. Mohunt Roghubur Das 23 Ind App. 158 at 165. While rejecting the contention that zuripeshgi' lease was a lease the Judicial committee of the Privy Council observed in Bengal Indico Company Ltd. v. Mohunt Roghubur Das 23 Ind App. 158 at 165. as follows:"their Lordships see no reason to differ from the views expressed by the learned Judges of the High Court to the effect that the leases' in question were not mere contracts for the cultivation of the land let, but that they were also intended to constitute, and did constitute, a real and valid security to the tenant for the principal sums which he had advanced, and interest thereon. The tenants' possession under them was, in part at least, not that of cultivators only but that of creditors operating repayment of the debt due to them by means of their security. " ( 4 ) IN this case the parties intended that the petitioner should give up possession of the property at the end of 1969-70. It has also to be borne in mind that the above agreement was entered into by the petitioner at a time when an ordinary tenant of agricultural land was not to give up possession after the expiry of the period agreed upon. If the parties intended that the transaction should be one in the nature of an ordinary lease they would not have used to word undu biduva karara. It is no doubt true that there is a statement in the above deposition that the petitioner had paid the rents subsequent to 1969-70. But there is ncr proof available on record in support of his case that he had paid rent in respect of the period subsequent to 1969-70. The Tribunal has not accepted that part cf the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has not got any receipt to show that he had paid rents after 1969-70. Even if he has continued in possession of the property after 1969-70, his possession cannot be that of a tenant particularly in the absence of any plea much less proof of the fact that an agreement of tenancy was entered into after the expiry of 1969-70. Whatever else it may be, onething is clear that his possession is not that of a tenant. When that conclusion is reached, the question of applying the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and declaring him as a tenant would not arise. Whatever else it may be, onething is clear that his possession is not that of a tenant. When that conclusion is reached, the question of applying the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and declaring him as a tenant would not arise. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal was entitled to decide the question: whether the petitioner was a tenant or not and on the material placed before it, it was of the opinion that the relationship of the petitioner and respondent 2 was not that of a tenant and landlord. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order made by the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .