JUDGMENT : K.C. Agarwal, J. This writ petition h as been filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment of the District Judge, Dehra Dun, dated 9-12-1982. 2. On the enforcement of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), Respondent No. 1 Atul Mittal, his cousins and uncles filed separate statements u/s 6(1) of the Act disclosing their shares in the joint properties and claiming that they did not possess any excess vacant land. These returns gave rise to Ceiling Cases Nos. 31 to 38 of 1980. They were consolidated. The statements were in respect of several properties. As in the present writ petition the controversy is only with respect to Cooperative Industrial Estate, Dehra Dun, comprising of plots 18, 19, 31 and 32 having an area of 2938 square metres with a constructed building over an area of 84 square metres, the details of other properties are not required to be given. This property was owned by Sajda Nasin Mahanl Sri Indresh Charan Das of Darbar Sri Guru Ram Rai Saheb. Through registered perpetual lease deeds dated 27-6-1963 and 17-1-1964, the Cooperative Industrial Estate obtained the plots mentioned above. Subsequently, the Cooperative Industrial Estate, Dehra Dun, sub-leased the same to Respondent No. 1 Atul Mittal. The claim of the said Respondent was that he exclusively possessed the said property, and that his other cousins and members of his family had no concern with the same. 3. The Competent Authority, on receipt of the statement u/s 6(1), issued a draft statement u/s 8(3). To this draft statement, several objections were filed. The Competent Authority by his judgment dated 29-1-1981 declared 778.76 square metres as excess vacant land in coming to this conclusion, he excluded the area of 84 square metres covered by building and 500 square metres as land appurtenant to it. Against the judgment of the Competent Authority, Respondent 1 filed an appeal being Ceiling Appeal No. 64 of 1981. The District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the competent Authority by holding that the property in question could not be taken to be covered by the Act inasmuch as it could net be said to be held by Respondent No. 1 within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act. The District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the competent Authority by holding that the property in question could not be taken to be covered by the Act inasmuch as it could net be said to be held by Respondent No. 1 within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act. The argument of Respondent 1 was that he was neither the owner nor the tenant as he was the sub-tenant of the same. The District Judge held that as a subtenant is not covered by Section 2(1) of the Act, Respondent No 1 was not covered by Section 3 of the Act. On this finding, the District Judge allowed the appeal. Dissatisfied, the present writ petition has been filed by the State of U.P. 4. Section 2(1) defines "to hold". This definition has two parts. Part (i) applies to a person who owns vacant land, whereas part (ii) covers the case of a person possessing such land as owner or as tenant or as mortgagee or under an irrevocable power of attorney or under a hire purchase agreement, or partly in one of the said capacities. The Explanation to this Section is important, hence it is being reproduced below: Explanation:--Where the same vacant land is held by one person in one capacity and by another person in another capacity, then, for the purposes of this Act, such land shall be deemed to be held by both such persons. 5. Learned Standing Counsel urged that a lease includes a sub-lease and, as such, a sub-lessee is as much a person holding the property as is a lessee. The difference between a sub-lessee and lessee is that there is a privity of contract between a lessee and the owner in respect of the demise whereas there is no relationship between a sub-lessee and the owner. His relationship is with the lessee. A lessee is entitled u/s 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act to sub-lease the whole or any part of his interest in the property. A sub-lessee would, on entering upon possession, acquire rights which are conferred on him by the lessee He has a right to remain in possession of the property given to him by his transfer (lessee). A lessee is entitled u/s 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act to sub-lease the whole or any part of his interest in the property. A sub-lessee would, on entering upon possession, acquire rights which are conferred on him by the lessee He has a right to remain in possession of the property given to him by his transfer (lessee). Section 109 of the Transfer of the Property Act provides: If the lessor transfers the property leased, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, such a sub-lessee shall have all the rights, and, be subject to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred. 6. If the object and purpose of the Act is kept into account, there will be no doubt that Section 3 will apply to a case of sub-lease as much as it applies to a case of lease. The object of the Act is to impose ceiling on vacant land with a view to ensure its equitable distribution amongst the various sections of society and also avoiding speculative transactions relating to land in urban agglomerations. Section 3 provides that no person shall hold vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit within the prohibition contained in Section 3, every body who is covered by the definition of the expression "to hold" would be within its purview. A lessee is a person WHO is covered. A lessee, as includes &a sub-lessee, he would also be covered, and if he is in possession of the land in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed by Section 4, he would also be within its clutches and land in possession of such a person in excess of the ceiling limit would be liable to be acquired. 7. There may be cases where two persons may be said to hold the same vacant land in one capacity and another in another capacity. In that event, such land will be held to have been held by both. Section 24 has been enacted with a view to benefit a person who has parted with possession of his vacant land by letting or mortgage or hire purchase agreement and, who, consequently is either left with no vacant land or with an area of vacant land which is less than the ceiling limit. Section 24 has been enacted with a view to benefit a person who has parted with possession of his vacant land by letting or mortgage or hire purchase agreement and, who, consequently is either left with no vacant land or with an area of vacant land which is less than the ceiling limit. A sub-lessee would also be entitled to get the benefit of Section 24 if an occasion arises for the same. However, in the instant case, the controversy was about the liability of Respondent No. 1 to account for the excess land on the ground of his being a sub-lessee. As a sub-lessee he had possession of the land in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under the Act. 8. In the instant case, another feature worthy of being noted is that what had been executed by Darbar Sri Guru Ram Rai Saheb were the perpetual leases, A perpetual lease is for ever it creates a permanent and heritable estate and not merely live estate. As a sub-lessee, Respondent No. 1 enjoyed the same rights as a lessee would. He was covered by Section 3 of the Act and, therefore the land surplus with him was liable to be declared as excess vacant land. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the District Judge, Dehra Dun, dated 9-12-1982 is quashed, and that of the Competent Authority is restored. No order as to costs.