appellants were put on enquiry by reason of the fact that they had notice of the respondents' lease. Had they inspected it, or made enquiries from the respondents they could have found that it contained an option for renewal. But as they neglected to do this and chose to rely upon the landlord's assurance they must suffer the consequences, for the respondents, being in no fault, cannot be deprived of their rights under their lease.' Section 70(1) of the Property and Conveyancing Law (W.N.) 1959, requires a purchaser to investigate the root of title of his vendor for the last 3O years, otherwise he is deemed to have notice of all equitable interests affecting the vendor's title to the property within the full statutory period of 30 years. However, where an intended lessee is prevented from calling for the title to the freehold or to the leasehold reversion, he will not be affected with notice of any matter or thing of which he might have had notice, if he had contracted that such title should be furnished. In addition, section 70(6) of the Law provides that a purchaser will not be affected with notice of any matter or thing of which, if he had investigated the title or made reasonable enquiries in regard to matters prior to the period of commencement of title fixed under section 70(1) or by any other statute, or any rule of law, he might have had notice, unless he actually makes such investigation or enquiries. Section 194(1)(i) and (ii) of the Property and Conveyancing Law (W.N.) 1959, which is a substantial re- enactment of section (3)(1) of the Conveyancing Act 1881, a statute of general application re-stated the equitable doctrine of constructive notice, though in a negative form. According to the provision, a purchaser shall not be prejudicially affected by