1. Defendant 1 is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff to recover possession of the suit property after the removal of the house standing on it. The appellant obtained the property, which was a vacant site, on lease for erecting a house for residential purposes. Under the lease-deed (Ex. H) her agreed to remove the house at his own expense whenever required by trie owner He now claims that before he is ejected he is entitled to be paid the value of the house under the Malabar Tenants Improvements Act (Act 1 of 1900). It is conceded the "house"falls within the meaning of the term "improvement"as defined in the Act and that if the Act applies, the undertaking to remove it cannot be enforced as it offends against the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. The learned District Judge disallowed the Compensation for the house on the ground that the lease, being not an agricultural one, is governed by the Transfer of Property Act and not by the Malabar Tenants Improvements Act.

2. The question we have to decide is whether the Malabar Tenants Improvements Act applies only to agricultural leases and not to building leases (i.e., lease of va