1. The defendant is the appellant. He obtained a permanent lease of a house site from the trustee of a religious trust in 1911. The successor in the trusteeship brought this suit in 1915 to eject him. That the permanent lease is invalid against the trust cannot be denied and though the 2nd ground in the appeal memorandum contends that it is valid against the trust, the point was not seriously argued [see Palaniappa Chetty v. Sreemath Deivasikamony Pandara Sannadhi 39 Ind. Cas. 722 : 40 M. 709 : 21 C.W.N. 729 : 15 A.L.J. 485 : 1 P.L.W. 697 : 33 M.L.J. 1 : 19 Bom. L.R. 567 : 22 M.L.T. 1 : (1917) M.W.N. 477 & 507 : 26 C.L.J. 153 : 6 L.W. 222 : 44 I.A. 147 (P.C)]

2. The next contention was that the defendant, who has built a house on the leased site, is entitled to compensation before his evictment and is not merely entitled to be allowed to remove the materials of the house (which he has been allowed to do by the decrees of the lower Courts). Mr. T.V. Venkatarama Aiyar conceded that he cannot rely on Section 51 of Act IV of 1882 (Transfer of Property Act) in support of his claim to compensation [see on this point our judgment in Perumal Gramani v. Mohamad Kasim Sahib 28 Ind. Ca