Mr. M. Natesan, learned counsel for the appellant, urged that in this case, clauses 2 and 4 of the lease deed read together would amount to a 'stipulation as to the erection of buildings· within the proviso to s.12 of the Act and, as such, the respondent is bound to surrender, on expiry of the lease period, possession of the lan:l and also the building after receiving the sum of Rs. 5,000/- as the value of the super-structure. The counsel pointed out that in this case the respondent-tenant in Exhibit A-1, a document which is in writing, registered, bas agreed to surrender possession of the entire property and the constructions thereon, on the expiry of the period of the lease, on receiving the sum of Rs. 5,000/- as the value of the super-structure. In this case, that term really relates to the building which has been put up by the tenant after the date of the contract and clauses 2 and 4 amount to a stipulation made by the tenant as to the erection of buildings. That is, according to the learned counsel, the tenant's agreement to receive the sum of Rs. 5,000/- as the value of lb.e super-structure that may be put up by him on the land demised under the lease and to surrender possessioin of the land and building, is a stipulation as to the erection of buildings, coming under the proviso to s.12 and, as such, the respondent is not entitled to any rights under the Act. The counsel also pointed out that the Letters Patent Bench has not properly appreciated the scope of the decision of this Court in Vajrapani's case(1 ). Counsel further urged that in this case, as the tenant had agreed to receive the particular amount of compensation under Exhibit A-1, there was no question of his claiming any further right to compensation under
