JUDGMENT 1. A short but interesting point of law is involved in this Rule. The point of law for determination is whether the interest of a thika tenant in his holding is transferable. 2. ADMITTEDLY the opposite party No. 1 Tripti Rani Das was a thika tenant in respect of the disputed holding being 3 cottahs 8 chataks of land being holding No. 31, Bhairab Ghatak Lane, Salkia, P. S. Malipanchghara, Howrah at a monthly rent of Rs. 3. 97 P. The petitioners filed an application under section 9 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 on March 25, 1971 before the learned Munsif, Fifth Court, Howrah as the Thika Controller, alleging that the said opposite party had abandoned the. holding for over two months without any notice to the landlords and without arranging for payment of rent as it fell due from Baisakh 1377 B. S. The landlords also filed notice in the prescribed forms in the said court stating that they had treated the holding as abandoned and intended to enter on it. Notice was accordingly issued on the opposite party No. 1 the Thika tenant, who however did not enter appearance. On April 20, 1971 one Sm. Radharaani Ghosh filed an application for adding her as a party to the proceeding on the basis of her acquisition of the interest of thika tenant with structures thereon by registered kobala dated December 16, 1970. The learned Munsif allowed the application adding the opposite party No. 2 as a party to the said proceeding. Thereafter on a trial on evidence the learned Munsif found that the opposite party No. 2, was in possession of the property on basis of her purchase as aforesaid. There was accordingly it was held, no question of abandonment of the holding and the opposite party No. 2 became the thika tenant under the landlords in place of the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 2 was further directed to pay the arrears within a month from September 30, 1972, the date of the order and the landlords petition was accordingly dismissed. 3. ON appeal by the landlords it was held that the opposite party No. 2 in view of Rule 12 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Rules and Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rightly added as a party to the proceeding. 3. ON appeal by the landlords it was held that the opposite party No. 2 in view of Rule 12 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Rules and Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rightly added as a party to the proceeding. Further in view of the definition of Thika tenant under section 2 (5) of the Act the opposite party No. 2 became a thika tenant under the landlords. The findings of the learned Munsif as the Thika Controller was affirmed. As there was no dispute that arrears of rent as directed had been duly deposited the appeal was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court Howrah. The present Rule is directed as the above orders. 4. AS already indicated the point in controversy is about the transferability of the interest of thika tenant in his holding. The Calcutta Thika tenancy Act, 1949 is an Act providing for better provision relating to the Law of landlord and, tenant in respect of thika tenancies in Calcutta and Howrah. The Act was brought into existence in the context of a steady eviction of the bustee tenants of Calcutta on account of heavy pressure of population, leading to great misery and hardship to the tenants. The Government was forced to promulgate the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Ordinance, 1948 which was replaced, en its ceasing to operate, by the Calcutta' Thika Tenancy Act, 1949. The provisions of these enactments were primarily intended to restrict the landlord's right to evict the thika tenant, which so long was governed by the Transfer of Property Act 1882 as also by the terms of lease between the parties if any. A more onerous procedure has been laid down for eviction of thika tenants conferring rights on them to receive compensation for the structures constructed by them and the eviction of thika tenants has been also been restricted to specific grounds. There are also provisions relating rent its deposit and enhancement within limits on specific grounds. Even so, it cannot be said nor claimed that the Act is a complete or exhaustive code governing the relationship of landlords and thika tenants in all respects. 5. There are also provisions relating rent its deposit and enhancement within limits on specific grounds. Even so, it cannot be said nor claimed that the Act is a complete or exhaustive code governing the relationship of landlords and thika tenants in all respects. 5. IT is accordingly obvious that in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made nor is there any prohibition in the special Act under our consideration, the relationship of landlord and tenant will be governed by the provisions of the Transfer of property Act, 1882. This Act of 1882 tinder provisions of Section 108 in clause (j) gives the lessee a right to transfer his interest absolutely in absence of any contract or local usage to the contrary. The definition of "thika tenant" or any provision under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act does not provide that the interest of the thika tenancy will not be transferable nor is there any local usage prohibiting such transfer. It makes specific provision in section 2 (5) in respect of devolution of such interest by inheritance, as was also provided in section 11 since omitted as redundant but :so far as the transferability of the holding by the thika tenant is concerned, there is no prohibition express or implied. The doctrine of privity of estate has been applied in India and an absolute assignee is liable by privity of estate to the lessor for rent and on all covenants running with the land. Subject to such liability, the assignee on a valid transfer of the interest of the thika tenant in respect of his holding, himself becomes the thika tenant under the landlords under the same terms and conditions of tenancy subject to all the rights and liabilities attached to such tenancy in law and under contract wherever operative. Accordingly it appears that the interest of the thika tenancy in respect of his holding is transferable and the assignee is entitled Co resist an application under section 9 of the Act. In view of the above finding, the Rule is discharged without any order as to costs in the circumstances. Rule discharged.