Judgment :- 1. This appeal by defendants 1 and 2 has arisen in a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property and for its recovery from defendants 1 and 2, the former being a rival claimant to the property and the latter his lessee under Ext. A2 dated August 5, 1952. The courts below have concurred to find the 1st defendant to have no title to the property, which really belongs to the plaintiff, and therefore to decree its recovery by the plaintiff from the defendants. This appeal has been admitted by Raman Nayar, J. as regards only the 2nd defendant who claimed the status of a tenant entitled to immunity from eviction. 2. Counsel read S.7 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, I of 1964, which runs thus: 7. Certain persons occupying land honestly believing to be tenants, to be deemed tenants Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any judgment, decree or order of court, any person who, on the 11th day of April, 1957, was continuously is occupation of the land of another situate is Malabar, for not less than two years, honestly believing himself to be a tenant and continued to be in occupation of such land at the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to be a tenant." and contended that as the 2nd defendant has been holding the property as lessee of the 1st defendant from 1952 he must be found to have acquired the status of a tenant under the above definition. The question therefore is whether he has been in occupation of the land since 1952 "honestly believing himself to be a tenant" of the property. 3. There cannot be a tenant without a landlord; and there cannot be a landlord who has no vestige of title, whether absolute, limited or qualified, to the land. The definition in S.7 refers to a person who has been in occupation of the land "honestly" believing himself to be a tenant, that is to say, a person who honestly believes to have obtained a derivative title from a landlord. The definition in S.7 refers to a person who has been in occupation of the land "honestly" believing himself to be a tenant, that is to say, a person who honestly believes to have obtained a derivative title from a landlord. If a tenant, under a lease expired by efflux of term or under a lease from year to year or reserving a yearly rent made in writing not registered, which is ineffective to create a tenancy, under S.49 of the Registration Act, has been in occupation of the land over two years prior to 1957 honestly believing himself to be a tenant, he may be entitled to the benefits conferred on a tenant by the Act. I do not conceive that the Section is intended to confer legal immunity on trespassers, impostors or their henchmen. One strong indication in the Act itself is the exclusion of tenants inducted on the property by mortgagees in possession. If persons come on the property in a lawful manner are not to be established there permanently to the prejudice of the landowner, can it be assumed that the Act intended to confer fixity of tenure on persons brought on the land by trespassers or impostors? In my opinion, S.7 does not cover a tenant under an imposter who claimed a rival title to the property without any substratum of truth therein. 4. On the facts found, I do not find any purpose in remitting the suit to consider the rights of the 2nd defendant to continue on the property under S.7 of Act I of 1964. The prayer for a remand is also over-ruled. 5. There is no force in this Second Appeal, which is therefore dismissed with costs. Dismissed.