OAK, J.

( 1 ) THE short point for consideration in this special appeal is whether tenancy rights are extinguished, when a tenant purchases his landlords property.

( 2 ) REOTI Saran, plaintiff filed a suit against Hargu Lal defendant on these allegations. The dispute relates to certain shops. On 2-7-1942 the plaintiff and his brothers sold the shops in dispute to hargulal, defendant. The same day the parties entered into a written agreement, under which hargulal promised to reconvey the property to the vendors on condition that the vendors paid the price within a period of eight years. In pursuance of that agreement dated 2-7-1942, the plaintiff and his brothers paid up the price on 21-12-46, and repurchased the property from Hargu Lal defendant. There was partition between the plaintiff and his brothers. As a consequence of that partition, the shops in dispute came to the share of Reoti Saran plaintiff. Although the property was purchased from the defendant, the defendant declined to vacate the shops. The plaintiff, therefore, brought the suit against Hargulal defendant to recover possession over the shops. The plaintiff also claimed Rs. 400 as damages for wrongful occupation from the date of repurchase to the date of the institution of the suit.

( 3 ) THE defendant pleaded that he was an old tenant of the shops. The tenancy subsisted in spite of the transactions of 1942 and 1946. The defendant also pleaded payment of a certain sum to the plaintiffs brother Parmeshwari Dayal. The learned Munsif, Ghaziabad accepted the defence that hargulal defendant continued to be the tenant of the shops. Payment to Parmeshwari Dayal was also accepted by the trial Court. In the result, the trial Court merely passed a decree for a sum of rs. 145/- as arrears of rent. The relief for possession was refused.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff went up in appeal, and succeeded. The learned second civil judge, Meerut held (hat as a consequence of merger of tenancy rights with the proprietary rights, the defendant could no longer be described as a tenant of the shops. The Court further held that payment to parmeshwari Dayal could not be recognized. In the result, the learned Civil Judge passed in plaintiffs favour a decree for possession for recovery of a sum of Rs. 265/- as damages.

( 5 ) THE defendant went up in second appeal, A learned single Judge of this Court disagreed with the lower appellate Court on the question of merger of tenancy rights. The learned single Judge held that, on the facts of the present case, there was no merger of tenancy rights, and the defendant continued to be tenant of the shops after 1946. The learned single Judge, therefore, set aside the decree for the defendants ejectment, but maintained the decree for arrears of rent. Reoti saran plaintiff has come up in special appeal.

( 6 ) IT has been found that the defendant occupied the shops as a tenant before July 1942. The question for consideration is whether Hargu Lals tenancy rights were extinguished, when he purchased the shops on 2-7-42. The plaintiff relied upon Section 111 of the Transfer Of Property act. Section 111, Transfer of Property Act deals with tetermination of lease, and runs thus: "a lease of immovable property determines: (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . (d) in case the interests of the lessee and the lessor in the whole of the property become vested at the same time in one person to the same right. . . . . . . . "

( 7 ) THE question for consideration is whether Hargulals tenancy rights were extinguished on 2-7-1942 under Section 111 (d), Transfer of Property Act. Mr. Jagdish Swamp, appearing for the defendant-respondent, contended that the expression in the same right appearing in Clause (d) of section 111, Transfer of Property Act creates some difficulty. It seems to us that the expression in the same right conveys the idea that,