JUDGMENT

Suffian FJ:

I have had the advantage of reading my brother MacIntyre's judgment and I too think this appeal should be dismissed.

The following cases were also cited in argument: Ban Seng V. Yap Pek Soo, Tay Cheo V. Chow Ngia, Govindaraju V. Krishnan, Bhavan Lalu v. Umar Mohamed Bhaiji AIR 1927 Bombay 129, Hee Cheng V. Krishnan.

The widow (appellant) obtained a warrant of distress in respect of rent alleged to be due for the period beginning on 1 July 1964 and ending on 28 February 1965. On the tenant (respondent) objecting, the learned Magistrate held that she was not entitled to the rent and on appeal Ali J agreed with the learned Magistrate. With respect I also agree.

Immediately before the issue of the temporary occupation licence to the deceased, the land concerned was State land. After the issue of the temporary occupation licence, the land was still State land, but the deceased had a licence to occupy it temporarily. By law this licence was not transferable and I agree with Good J in Papoo V. Veeriah that the licence was not transmitted to the widow on the licensee's death and he died on 10 August 1962. Thereafter the collector renewed the licence for the year 196