This is a miscellaneous appeal arising out of an execution proceeding. The respondent obtained a de­cree against the appellant and in execution of that decree he attached the tenancy right of the appellant. The appellant has a right under a lease to remain in possession of certain premises on payment of monthly rent. This right of the appellant is sought to be at­tached and sold in execution of the decree. An ob­jection was raised by the judgment-debtor that this is not a property which is liable to be attached under S. 60, Civil Procedure Code. The objection was re­pelled by the Subordinate Judge and the present ap­peal has been filed against that order.

(2) The main question is whether under S. 60 of the Civil Procedure Code the right of the appel­lant to remain in possession of the house as a tenant is liable to be attached or sold in execution of the decree or not. Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that any property which is saleable can be attached in execution of a decree. The question there­fore to be considered is whether the appellant's right to remain in occupation of house as a tenant is a pro­perty and the next question that will have to be con­sidered is whether it is saleable or not. Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that "a lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or im­plied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, ser-1 vice or any other thing of value, to be rendered perio­dically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms."

From this definition of the word 'lease' it is clear that a lease creates an interest in the property in favour of the lessee and he has got a right to remain in occupation of the premises on payment of the rent, lit cannot therefore be seriously contended that this right is not a property within the meaning of S. 60. The word property has nowhere been defined under the Transfer of Property Act. Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act only provides that property oil any kind maybe transferred, except as otherwise pro­vided by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force. Then various sub-sections of S. 6 spe­cify the properties which cannot be transferred and which cannot be regarded as properties within the meaning of the law.

Reliance was placed by the counsel for the ap­pellant on sub-s. (d) of S. 6 which says that "an in­terest in property restricted in its enjoyment to the owner personally cannot be transferred by him." It cannot be said in the present case that the enjoyment of the tenancy right has been restricted to the tenant personally under the terms of the lease under which the right was created or that there was any enactment which restricts the enjoyment of the property i.e. the tenancy right to the appellant himself. Reliance was placed on S. 6 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1955 (Assam Act III of 1956). I We shall deal with that section later on. From this iti is clear that the right of the appellant is a property.

(3) The next question to be considered is whether it is a saleable property or not. Section 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act provides as follows :

"(j) the lessee may transfer absolutely or by way of mortgage or sub-lease the whole or any part of his interest in the property, and any transferee of such interest or part may again transfer it. The lessee shall not, by reason only of such transfer, cease to be sub­ject to any of the liabilities attaching to the lease.

This section in our mind clearly lays down that the right of a lessee is transferable and saleable. The question therefore to be considered is how far S. 6 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act takes it out of the purview of sub-s. (j) of S. 108 of the Trans-i fer of Property Act. If on the interpretation of S. 0 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent