ivil Appeal No 902 of 1977
From the Judgment and Order dated 1371976 of the Madras High Court in SA No 1575 of 1973
 K Ram Kumar and Ms Janki Ramachandran for the Appellant
M Raghuraman for the Respondents The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL J
This appeal by Special Leave is
directed against the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 2971976
The short controversy in the case is regarding the ambit and scape of a will dated 226
executed by one Padmanabha Chettiar
The construction of the will is in question in the present case
A translation of the will as supplied by the appellant in this Court reads as under On the 2nd day of June 1924 ie Tamil 9th day of Ani of Raktakshi
year this will executed by me Padmanabha Chettiar son of Sami Chettiar Vysya caste cultivation resident of New Street Sultanpettai Koppam Palakkadu Taluq Kallikottai District presently at Aniaimalai is to the effect
As I do not have male progeny and I have attained old age the movable and immovable properties mentioned hereunder in my possession and enjoyment both ancestral and also self ac quired shall be enjoyed by me absolutely till my life time after my lifetime my wife Dhana lakshmi Ammal shall enjoy likewise till her lifetime after her lifetime as described hereunder A Schedule properties shall be enjoyed absolutely by my daughter and wife of Anaimalai Subramania Chettiar Rajalakshmi Ammal and after her it should go to her male children
The question which arises on the basis of the contents of the above will is whether Rajalakshmi Ammal had acquired a life estate 716 under the will or an absolute estate
The High Court took the view that it was one of the cardinal principles of construction of wills that so far as legally possible effect should be given to every disposition contained in the will unless the law prevents such effect being given to it
The High Court held that the fact that the testator directed that after Rajalakshmi Ammal it shall go to her male chil dren clearly showed an intention that Rajalakshmi Ammal s interest in the properties should not be absolute
The High Court thus arrived to the conclusion that Rajalakshmi Ammal should be deemed to have held only a life estate in the properties and after her death her male children got the properties absolutely
After going through the contents of the will we agree with the view taken by the High Court
We do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant raised before us that Padmanabha Chettiar the testator of the will wanted to give absolute right in the property to his wife Dhanalakshmi Ammal and thereafter absolute right in favour of his daughter Rajalakshmi Ammal
The above inten tion is negatived by a clear mention in the will that after Rajalakshmi Ammal the property shall ultimately go to her male children
In case the intention of the testator was to give the properties absolutely in favour of Rajalakshmi and not merely life interest then there was no question of mentioning that after her it should go to her male children
Learned counsel for the appellant also raised a conten tion that even if it may be considered that only life inter est was given to Rajalakshmi Ammal under the will such right became absolute under Section 14 1 of the 
This contention was neither raised in any of the courts below nor before the High Court nor in the petition for special leave and we cannot permit this ground to be raised for the first time before us during the course of arguments
In the result we find no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs
TNA Appeal dis missed


Summary:
The defendant appellant was a sub tenant in terms of a sub lease granted to him by the non occupancy tenants for a period of five years from 111950 expiring on 31121954 in respect of the land in dispute of which the plaintiff re spondent was the proprietor
On 1491954 the original tenants surrendered their interests in the holding to the proprietor who issued a notice dated 2111954 to the sub tenant demanding vacant possession of the land by 31121954 the agreed date of expiry of the sub lease and since the latter failed to comply with the notice the propriter filed a suit fro ejectment under section 180 of the nited Provinces Tenancy Act 1939
The Trial Court as well as the first appellate court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff but dismissed the suit as not maintainable holding that the defendant being a sub tenant was liable to be ejected only in terms of section 175 and not under section 180 of the Act and had the suit been brought under section 175 it would have been stayed in terms of the Government Notification dated 2311953
In the second appeal by the plaintiff the High Court held that the suit was rightly brought under section I80 and finding the other issues in favour of the plaintiff it decreed the suit
Aggrieved the defendant filed the appeal by special leave to this Court
It was contended on behalf of the defendant appellant that his interest in the land was not extinguished on the extinction of the 673 tenants  interest but continued even after termination of the period of his sub lease notwithstanding the plaintiffs  notice that although the term of lease had expired he was not in unlawful or unauthorised occupation but was in pos session of the land by reason of his being a lessee and therefore section 175of the United Provinces Tenancy Act was applicable and that he ceased to be a sub tenant and was elevated to the position of a tenant on the extinction of the interests of the tenants on their surrender of the holding
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD By the Court Dr
TK Thommen  RM Sahai JJ 1 The interest of a non occupancy sub tenant is liable to be extinguished consequent on the extinction of the inter ests of the nonoccupancy tenant and he enjoys a legal right for a limited period in terms of the statute
2 A person who continues to remain in occupation of the land even after the expiry of the period of his lease and despite the landlords  notice to quit the permises can no longer be regarded as a tenant as referred to in clause a or clause b of section 175 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act 1939
3 The persons who axe not or are no longer tenants at the time of the suit and liable to ejectment have to be proceeded against under section 180 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act 1939
Per Dr Thommen J 11 The extinguishment of the interest of a non occupan cy tenant would as envisaged by section 471 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act 1939 extinguish the interest of his sub tenant except as otherwise proVided in sub sections
3 and 4
685A B 12 Notwithstanding the extinction of the interest of the the by reason of his surrender or any other reason mentioned under subsection 4 of section 47 a sub tenant whose sub tenancy had not expired was protected for the remainder of the term of the sub lease or for 5 years whichever period be the shorter but subject to the requirement of sub section 5 about rent
681G H 21 In the instant case the interests of the tenants had become extinguished in terms of clause c of section 45 of the United Provinces 674 Tenancy Act by reason of surrender of their interests in the holding on 14954 in favour of the proprietor plaintiff
679G H Once the interest of the person under whom the defendant held the land was extinguished the defendant was no longer a sub tenant but a person enjoying a legal right for a limited period in terms of the statute
685B Birendra Pratap Singh  Anr
vs Gulwant Singh  Ors   referred to
Biswabani P Ltd vs Santosh Kumar Dutta  Ors
   held inapplicable
The interest of the defendant being that of a nan occupancy subtenant was subject to the provisions of sub ss4and 5 of section 47 liable to be extinguished consequent on the extinction of the interests of the non occupancy tenants
681 B C 22 The statutory right vested in the defendant remained in force only for the statutority limited period for the purpose of removal of standing crops and other products of the earth and he had an obligation to vacate the holding as envisaged by section 48
681H 682A 23 The terms and conditions under which the defendant held the sub lease under the tenants continued to be binding and enforceable between the plaintiff and the defendant for the period from 1491954 which was the date of surrender by the tenants till 31121954 which was the date on which the defendant s sub lease expired
This was however sub ject to sub section
5 of section 47 which provided that if the rent payable by the sub tenant was less than the rent that was payable by the tenant the sub tenant had the option of vacating the holding or continuing in possession for the period permitted by the statute on payment of rent at the higher rate which was applicable to the tenant
681E F 31 Section 175 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act dealing with a non occupancy tenant is confined to a person who is a tenant either in terms of an unexpired lease or by reason of his being allowed to continue in possession after the expiry of the period of the lease
The section has no application to past tenants whose interests have become extinguished for the reasons stated in section 45 or section 47 or whose lease has been duly determined
682F G 683E 675 675 32 There must be an existing or continuing legal rela tionship between the owner and the person in possession of the land
In the absence of any such relationship either because no lease or any other interest or right was ever granted or because it was duly determined or extinguished a person retaining possession of the land without the consent and contrary to the will of the landlord does not come within the purview ors
684A B 33 Persons who are not or who are no longer tenants at the time of suit and liable to ejectment have to be proceeded against under section 180
682G H 34 section 180 has no application to a present tenant
It is meant for ejectment of a person who has no present right to retain possession of land either because his occupation commenced without any such right or the right by which he commenced the occupation has since been duly extinguished or terminated in accordance with the law in force
683B 684B C Bhinka  Ors
vs Charan Singh 1959 Supp 2 SCR 798 referred to
The learned Judges of the High Court were correct in holding that insofar as the defendant continued to remain in occupation of the land even after the expiry of the period of his lease and despite the landlord s notice to quit the premises he could no longer be regarded as a tenant re ferred to in clause a or b of section 175 and therefore that section had no application to him
The right section in terms of which a suit had to be brought against him as the plaintiff did in the instant case was section 180
686G H 687A Per Sahai
J 11 Sub tenant literally or statutorily either in the Rent Control legislations or agricultural tenancies normal ly is a person in possession holding from the tenant
His right or interest depends on provisions in the statute
687C 12 Under UP Tenancy Act sub tenant according to clause 22 of section 3 holds land from a tenant and even though he is included in the definition of tenant in clause 23 and is non occupancy tenant under section 31 of the Act yet he is inferior class of tenant as he is specifically precluded by section 39 from subletting and has no security of tenure as he can be evicted under section 175 of the Act and his interest in the holding 676 extinguishes statutorily under section 47 on extinction of interest of his tenant under section 45 of the Act
687C D 21 A combined reading of sub sections 1 and 4 of section 47 shows that the interest of a sub tenant extinguishes on surrender by his tenant but this is deferred for the period mentioned in sub section 4
The extinction is complete but its operation is postponed to a later date
The right creat ed by sub section 4 being limited in operation it cannot extend beyond the period mentioned in it
689G H 690A B 22 Section 47 is wider in application and immediate in operation
It extends to every tenant holding under a tenant other than permanent tenure holder or fixed rate tenant
The interest of such tenant extinguishes automatically and immediately by operation of law on extinction of interest of his chief tenant
No further requirement is contemplated
He becomes liable to ejectment
If he continues in possession he is a trespasser unless he holds with consent of the landholderlandlord expressly or impliedly and as envis aged by section 48 he is required to vacate the holding except for the standing crops and produce which he is permitted to remove as any other tenant ejected in accordance with the provisions of the Act
689A C  Section 474 does not arrest extinction
It only postpones it
690C D Birendra Pratap vs Gulwant Singh and Others  referred to
23 The expression Except as provided  in sub section 1 of section 47 does not carve out an exception to extinction of interest of Subtenant but to its immediate operation
That is interest in the holding is extinguished but form a future date namely expiry of the period of leases or five years whichever is shorter
This benefit or concession cannot be stretched to vest any fresh tenancy right in him after expiry of the period
689F G 24 No new tenancy is created by sub section
4 of section 47
What is made binding and enforceable is the old covenant existing between the tenant and sub tenant for the remainder period of the sub lease
Whatever right a sub tenant ac quires it ceases to operate after the expiry of period of lease or the period mentioned in the sub section
No second extinction is visualised
690E F 31 Status of a person in possession after expiry of the remainder 677 period of lease or five years as provided in section 474 can neither be of statutory tenant nor a tenant holding over as understood in common parlance
He is a person in possession without authority of law
690G 32 A sub tenant whose extinction is postponed as a matter of concession because of the tenant s prejudicial acts cannot be placed any higher than other sub tenants who are required to vacate their holding immediately under section 48
Therefore retention of possession by such person cannot he except otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act for the time being in force
690G H 691A 4
The full Bench of the High Court was right in holding that the effect of extinction of sub tenant s interest under section 471 of the Act was not only that he could no longer be held to he in the capacity of subtenant  but even the new right  of continuance for the remainder period of lease which was created under section 474 was limited and did not vest any right in such person to continue after that date nor any fresh right of sub tenancy could be deemed to ac crue consequently possession of such person after expiry of the extended period was otherwise than in accordance with the provision of law against whom a suit for ejectment under section 180 of the Act was maintainable
691A C