Judgment :- 1. The Civil Revision Petition raises a short, but important, question regarding the applicability of S.19 of Kerala Act IV of 1961 to varomdars. 2. The Civil Revision Petitioner, who is a varomdar, filed O.S. No. 714 of 1961 on the file of the lower court for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the property as varomdar. A temporary injunction pending suit was also sought, which was granted by the lower court. On 26th September 1961 the respondent-landlord applied for the issue of a commission for harvesting the crops on the plaint property and dividing the gross produce equally between the landlord and the varomdar. The varomdar-petitioner objected to this course on the ground that he was entitled to pay his dues either in kind or in money at his option and the court had no jurisdiction to issue a commission for harvesting the crops and dividing the produce. This objection was overruled and the commissioner was directed to harvest the crops and divide the gross produce equally between the parties. In revision the varomdar impeaches the correctness of this order. 3. The important question for decision is whether the varomdar is entitled to pay his dues in kind or in money at his option. This has to be decided on a consideration of the scheme and the relevant provisions of Kerala Act IV of 1961. S.19 [1] of the Act provides that where the rent is payable in kind, it shall be paid either in kind or in money at the option of the tenant. The question naturally arises as to whether the dues payable in kind by a varomdar are rent and the varomdar himself is a tenant. S.2[54] of the Act defines varom as an arrangement between the varomdar and the owner or other person in lawful possession, of any nilam for the cultivation of paddy and sharing of the paddy produce. Sub-section 55 of S.2 lays down that varomdar means a person who cultivates under a varom arrangement. Rent is defined under S.2 [45] as whatever is lawfully payable in money or in kind or in both by a person permitted to have the use and occupation of any land to the person so permitting. Sub-section 55 of S.2 lays down that varomdar means a person who cultivates under a varom arrangement. Rent is defined under S.2 [45] as whatever is lawfully payable in money or in kind or in both by a person permitted to have the use and occupation of any land to the person so permitting. Again tenant is defined under S.2[50] [i] as any person who has paid or has agreed to pay rent or other consideration, for his being allowed by another, to possess and to enjoy the land of the latter and includes, among others, a varomdar. Again "possession" in relation to land is defined under S.2 [40] to include the occupation of land by a varomdar. S.2 [37] states that "pay" with its grammatical variations includes deliver. 4. The aforesaid definitions contained in S.2 of the Act show this. The delivery of the paddy in kind by a varomdar is payment of his dues. The varomdar is undoubtedly a tenant and the dues he pays are rent. If so, the paddy rent he has to pay is rent payable in kind and therefore S.19 [1] applies to such payment, with the consequence that the varomdar has the option to pay his rent either in kind or in money and if he chooses to pay in money, the payment has to be made under sub-section 2 of S.19. 5. The learned advocate of the respondent takes objection to this line of reasoning. According to him, the varomdar under Act IV of 1961 has only two rights, namely, the right to fixity of tenure and the right to purchase the land occupied by him under varom. He goes even to the extent of contending that the varomdar has no possession of the land he is holding under the varom arrangement. This contention, I mean the contention that the varomdar has no possession of the land held by him in varom, is evidently untenable, because S.2 [40] specifically lays down that the occupation of land by a varomdar is possession. I fail to understand why the benefits contemplated by the Act to a varomdar should be confined to the right of fixity of tenure and to the right to purchase the lands with him under varom. The respondent's learned advocate further contends that the land held by a varomdar under a varom arrangement is not a holding. I fail to understand why the benefits contemplated by the Act to a varomdar should be confined to the right of fixity of tenure and to the right to purchase the lands with him under varom. The respondent's learned advocate further contends that the land held by a varomdar under a varom arrangement is not a holding. I do not see any force in this contention either. S.2(15) defines "holding" as a parcel or parcels of land held under a single transaction by a tenant from a landlord. If a varomdar is a tenant, which undoubtedly he is under S.2(50)(i)(h), then a varom arrangement regarding a parcel of land between the varomdar and the landlord is certainly a holding under S.2(15). I do not find any escape from the position that the legislature intended to confer the status of a tenant on the varomdar and the several provisions of the Act indubitably point in that direction. 6. Thus, the order of the lower court appointing a commissioner to harvest the crops and divide the produce equally between the parties was wrong and without jurisdiction. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore allowed and the order of the lower court set aside. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in this Court. Allowed.