JUDGMENT : T.C. Raghavan, J. The short question for decision is whether S.106 of Kerala Act I of 1964 applies to the provisions in Ex. A, the lease arrangement between the parties. The lower appellate court held that S.78 of Kerala Act IV of 1961, the section corresponding to S.106 of Act I of 1964, did not apply. The 2nd defendant - appellant claims that this decision of the lower appellate court is wrong, when the 2nd plaintiff-respondent supports the decision. 2. Ex. A recites that the buildings and the land having an extent of one acre and 78 cents excluding the school and compound thereon and also excluding the bearing coconut and arecanut trees are let out to the tenant for a period of three years on a rent of Rs. 50/- per mensem during the first year and of Rs. 60/- per mensem during the rest of the period. It is further recited that the buildings and the land are intended for residence and for an iron factory. The recital continues that the tenant is entitled to put up sheds on the land for the purpose of his iron factory; and the landlord is entitled to take the usufructs from the coconut and arecanut trees. 3. Under S.3 (1)(iii) leases of land or of buildings or of both specifically granted for industrial or commercial purposes are excluded from the operation of the provisions of Chapter II of the Act. That means that for such leases there is no fixity of tenure. But, under S.106 (1) of the Act it is provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or in any law or contract or order or decree of court, where on any land leased for commercial or industrial purposes the lessee has constructed buildings for such commercial or industrial purposes before the end of December 1957, then the lessee shall not be liable to be evicted, but shall be liable to pay rent under the contract of tenancy. There is no dispute in this case regarding the construction of some sheds before the relevant date. The only dispute is whether the lease is of land alone for commercial or industrial purposes or of land and buildings. As already indicated, S. 3(1)(iii) excludes three kinds of leases, namely, leases of land, leases of buildings and leases of both, from fixity of tenure. The only dispute is whether the lease is of land alone for commercial or industrial purposes or of land and buildings. As already indicated, S. 3(1)(iii) excludes three kinds of leases, namely, leases of land, leases of buildings and leases of both, from fixity of tenure. After those categories of leases are thus excluded tinder that provision, one category from them, namely, leases relating to lands whereon lessees have constructed buildings prior to the relevant date, alone is again brought within the provision relating to fixity of tenure on certain conditions by S.106. The other two types of leases, namely, leases of buildings and leases of buildings and land are not entitled to fixity of tenure. 4. In the case before us, it is difficult to hold that the lease related only to land. Considering the nature of the buildings as it appears from the commissioner's report, it cannot be said that the buildings are negligible in nature so as to construe the lease as a lease of land alone. At the most, what can be done is to treat the lease as a lease of land and buildings together and not as a lease of buildings alone. If so, the lease comes within the mischief of S.3(1)(iii); and to such a lease fixity of tenure does not avail. That is, S.106 does not apply to it. 5. Then it is urged by Mr. Easwara Iyer, the learned counsel of the appellant, that the lease may be treated as a composite lease of buildings for residential purposes and a lease of land for commercial or industrial purposes. In the nature of the provisions contained in Ex. A, it is difficult to accept this plea and treat the lease as, in effect, two leases, one relating to buildings and the other relating to land. As already stated, it can only be held that the lease relates to land and buildings, with the result that it is hit by S.3(1)(iii) of the Act. 6. The second appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. Dismissed.