Judgment :- 1. The question for decision is whether a usufructuary mortgagee, who has put up a building in the mortgaged property and is residing there, is entitled to fixity of tenure under S.21 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. The learned Munsiff held that the plaintiff could redeem the mortgage but not recover possession as the mortgagee has to be deemed a "tenant of a kudiyiruppu." On appeal, the Subordinate Judge held that the mortgagee was bound to surrender possession This court, in Second Appeal No. 308 of 1957, upheld the view of the trial court. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff from the decision in the Second Appeal. 2. The concurrent finding that the defendants are in possession under the usufructuary mortgage Ext. A-1 dated 23-10-1934 and not the earlier lease was not objected to by the respondents. So the only question is whether the defendants can claim fixity of tenure under S.21 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, which provides: "Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, whether entered into before or after the commencement of this Act, every cultivating verumpattamdar, every customary verumpattamdar, every kanamdar, every kanam-kuzhikanamdar, every kuzhikanamdar, every tenant of a kudiyiruppu and every holder of a protected ulkudi or a kudikidappu shall have fixity of tenure in respect of his holding and shall not be evicted therefrom except as provided in this Act; (the provisos are omitted as they are not relevant) 3. The decision under appeal is based on the finding that there is no distinction between the "tenant of a kudiyiruppu" and "holder of a kudiyiruppu" and this is based on the definitions of the words "kudiyiruppu," "tenant" and "holding." The definitions are extracted: 'Kudiyiruppu' means and includes the site of any residential building, the site or sites of other buildings appurtenant thereto, such other lands as are necessary for the convenient enjoyment of such residential building, and the easements attached thereto but does not include an ulkudi or kudiyiruppu. 'Tenant' means any person who has paid or has agreed to pay rent or other consideration for his being allowed by another, to enjoy the land of the latter, and includes an intermediary, a kanamdar, a kanam¬kuzhikanamdar, a kuzhikanamdar, a verumpattamdar of any description and the holder of a kudiyiruppu; but does not include a 'mulgenidar' as defined in the Mulgeni Rent Enhancement Act, 1920, in the villages in the South Kanara District specified in the Schedule. 'Holding' means a parcel or parcels of land held under a single engagement by a tenant from a landlord and shall include, any portion of a holding as above defined, which the landlord and the tenant may agree to treat as a separate holding." According to these definitions, the "holder of a kudiyiruppu" is a 'tenant.' The mortgagees - respondents contend that these definitions read together lead to the conclusion that there is no difference between the "tenant of a kudiyiruppu" and the "holder of a kudiyiruppu" and the two are synonymous expressions - a view adopted by the learned Single Judge. 4. We are unable to accept this view. The protection given by S.21 is to a "tenant of a kudiyiruppu" and not to a "holder of a kudiyiruppu". The word "holder" has not been defined by the Act. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives the meaning of the word as "(1) one who holds or grasps (2) A tenant, occupier, possessor, owner." According to the definitions of "kudiyiruppu" and "tenant", any person who is the possessor of the site of a residential building would be a "tenant", as he holds or possesses the site. If the contention of the respondents is accepted, a person who trespasses on another's land and takes up residence there, will be entitled to fixity of tenure as the "holder of a kudiyiruppu." The owner of land who has a residential house therein would also be a "holder of a kudiyiruppu." The result of deciding the question solely on the definitions extracted above would be to give fixity of tenure even to a wrongdoer who trespasses on the land of another and erects a residential building there. That such was not the intention of the legislature is clear from the fact that the Malabar Tenancy Act was enacted "to define, declare, alter and amend the law relating to landlord and tenant". 5. That such was not the intention of the legislature is clear from the fact that the Malabar Tenancy Act was enacted "to define, declare, alter and amend the law relating to landlord and tenant". 5. In our opinion, the term "tenant" has been given a meaning in the Act so as to include all persons who pay rent or other consideration for being allowed by another to enjoy his land. This is the sense in which the term "tenant of a kudiyiruppu" is used in S.21. This would exclude from the scope of S.21 a trespasser or other person in possession of land belonging to another, between whom and the owner a relation of landlord and tenant does not subsist. A usufructuary mortgagee is not a tenant as his possession is only as security for a debt, the relation of the mortgagor and mortgagee being only one of debtor and creditor. This is the reason why the legislature has used the expression "tenant of a kudiyiruppu" and not "holder of a kudiyiruppu" in S.21. The two expressions cannot be treated as synonymous - at any rate, for the purpose of S.21. Again S.3, the defining section in the Act, begins with the words: "Unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context." It would be repugnant to the context to apply the definition of "tenant" which takes in the holder of a kudiyiruppu, to the term "tenant of a kudiyiruppu" in S.21 of the Act. 6. It follows that the respondents cannot claim protection under S.21 of the Act. The decree under appeal is therefore set aside and that of the learned Subordinate Judge is restored. The appeal is allowed with costs throughout. Allowed.