The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the Crown Grants Act, which led to the grant of a decree for ejectment without payment for improvements.

1. This is an appeal from the appellate judgment of the District Judge of Calicut reversing the judgment of the District Munsif and granting the plaintiff the Government a decree for ejectment without payment for improvements instead of a decree for ejecting defendant on payment for improvements.

2. The District Judge has held that the lease sued on is a Crown grant within the meaning of the Crown Grants Act and in that conclusion, in our opinion, he was right. Under Section 3 of the Crown Grants Act of 1895 the grant is to " take effect according to its tenor any, rule of law, statute or enactment of the legislature to the contrary notwithstanding." In our opinion it is not possible to have clearer words than these. The grant in question contains a reservation of the right to terminate the tenancy on six months notice, and there is an express covenant by the lessee to surrender. It is now said that he cannot be evicted until he has received compensation under the provisions of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act. To allow such a provision of that Act to take effect would prevent the Crown grant in question from taking effect according to its tenor. We entirely agree with the decision on this point in Kalliyal Moosa Kutti v. The Secretary of State (1919) I.L.R. 43 Mad. 65 and deem it unnecessary to repeat the reasons which are given for that decision.

3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.