B.B. Ghose, J.
1. In this case, the plaintiffs are the appellants. They brought the suit against their lessee for the rent of two holdings. The defence of the lessee was that he had transferred one of the holdings entirely and a portion of the other to a third person and, therefore, he was not liable to pay the whole rent due to the landlord. The Court of first instance made a partial decree in favour of the plaintiffs to the extent of the rent due for the part which has not been transferred by the defendant to the third person. The plaintiffs appealed to the learned Additional District Judge and the judgment of the first Court has been affirmed by him.
2. In my opinion, the judgment of the lower Appellate Court cannot be supported. The defendant is the legal representative of the original lessee, and under Section 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act, by which the present case is governed, the defendant does not cease to be subject to the liability to pay rent only by reason of the transfer made by him in favour of a third person. It is open to the landlord to enforce his right under the covenant in the lease see Sasi Bhushun Raha v. Tara Lal Singh Deo Bahadur (1895) 22 Cal. 494. I think, therefore, that the judgment of the Court of appeal below should be set aside and the appeal decreed. The result, therefore, is that the suit of the plaintiffs for the entire rent due to them is decreed against the defendant with costs in all Courts.