Judgment :- 1. The petitioners are the Vicar and Trustee of an Orthodox Syrian Church, which owns 106.918 cents of paddy land in Survey No. 710/6 in Aikkarnad Village. This land was outstanding on an oral lease with the fourth respondent. On 18 61966 he filed an application as O. A. No. 171 of 1966 before the local Land Tribunal for fixation of fair rent under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. During the pendency of that application, the petitioners entered into an agreement with the fourth respondent which is evidenced by Ext. P-2 dated 5-8-1966. By Ext. P 2, it was agreed, among other things, that after talcing the Chingom crop by the fourth respondent, the land would be actually divided into two-third and one-third, that two-third portion would be surrendered to the Church, and that the Church would pay Rs. 300/- to the fourth respondent as value of improvements and would also execute a sale deed in respect of the remaining one-third in favour of the fourth respondent. According to the petitioner, after the harvest was taken by the fourth respondent, the land was measured as required by Ext. P-2; and two-third portion measuring 71.297 cents was actually surrendered by the fourth respondent to the Church. In the light of the above agreement, O. A. No. 171 of 1966 was dismissed. 2. The Kerala Prevention of Eviction Act, 1966 came into force on 11th December, 1966. S.6 provides for prevention of eviction of cultivating tenants, etc ; and S.7 provides for restoration of possession of cultivating tenants evicted from their holding on of after 1st April, 1964. Taking advantage of the provision in S 7 (1), the fourth respondent filed an application, Ext. P-3 dated 7 21967, before the third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha for restoration of possession of the two-third portion of the property alleged to have been surrendered to the Church, stating that the agreement Ext. P-2 was vitiated by coercion, that the land was neither measured nor surrendered by him as stated in Ext. P-2 and that it had been forcibly trespassed on by the petitioners. The third respondent, by his order Ext. P-4 dated 11-8-1967, dismissed the petition holding that the agreement, Ext. P-2 was vitiated by coercion, that the land was neither measured nor surrendered by him as stated in Ext. P-2 and that it had been forcibly trespassed on by the petitioners. The third respondent, by his order Ext. P-4 dated 11-8-1967, dismissed the petition holding that the agreement, Ext. P 2, showed that the petitioner relinquished his right in respect of the said land voluntarily and his contention that he was evicted from the land cannot, therefore, be sustained under S.7(1) of the Kerala Prevention of Eviction Act, 1966. The fourth respondent, filed an appeal before the second respondent, the District Collector, Ernakulam, who by hisorder Ext. P-1 dated 16 61968 set aside the order of the third respondent, holding that under law there was eviction of the fourth respondent from his holding within the meaning of the provisions contained in the Prevention of Eviction Act, 1966; and he directed the third respondent to take the necessary steps to restore possession of the land to the fourth respondent. This writ petition has been filed to quash Ext. P-1 and for incidental reliefs 3. The third respondent did not consider the fourth respondent's case that he was forcibly evicted from the petitioner's holding; but he held that the agreement Ext. P-2 showed that the fourth respondent had relinquished his right voluntarily. The second respondent did not also consider the above question; but he held that even voluntary relinquishment or surrender by the tenant in favour of the landlord would be eviction within the meaning of that expression used in the Prevention of Eviction Act, 1966, and that the tenant was entitled to relief under S.7 (1) of the Act. In support of that conclusion he relies on S.51 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963; it reads: "51. In support of that conclusion he relies on S.51 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963; it reads: "51. Surrender by tenants: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a tenant may terminate the tenancy in respect of any land held by him at any time by surrender of his interest therein in favour of the landlord: Provided that such surrender shall not be effective unless it is made in writing and is admitted by the tenant before the Land Tribunal and is made in good faith and is registered in the office of the Land Tribunal in the prescribed manner: Provided further that the extent of land, the interest over which a cultivating tenant may surrender to his landlord, shall not exceed the extent, if any. which the landlord would have been entitled to resume from the tenant under S.14, S.15, S.16 or S.17. Then the second respondent proceeds to hold that the alleged surrender is invalid as it does not comply with the provisions of S.51 and that such a surrender would, therefore, amount to an eviction. 4. I am unable to accept the above reasoning. S.51 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 has no application to the case. All that it says is that a surrender unless it is made in accordance with the provisions of that section shall not be effective; and in that case the aggrieved tenant may have his own remedies to recover the land surrendered by him. Then the question for consideration is whether such an invalid surrender would be eviction within the meaning of the Kerala Prevention of Eviction Act. S.2 (a) of this Act provides, among other things, that the term "eviction" shall have the same meaning assigned to it in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. That term is defined in the latter Act as follows in S.2 (12): "Eviction" means the recovery of possession of land from a tenant or the recovery of a kudikidappu from the occupation of the kudikidappukaran;" Counsel for the fourth respondent contended that getting possession by surrender or relinquishment by the tenant, or conveyance of possession by surrender or release of his right by the tenant to the land owner would be recovery within the meaning of the above definition. I am unable to accept the above contention. I am unable to accept the above contention. If the Legislature wanted to give such a meaning to the term "eviction", it would have certainly provided in the above definition that 'eviction" would include also transfer of possession of the holding by the tenant to the landlord. The word "eviction" in ordinary parlance means ejectment of a person in possession. I am clear in my mind that it is in that sense that the said word has been used in the Kerala Prevention of Eviction Act. There is nothing in the definition of this word in the Land Reforms Act to show that it has a different or more enlarged meaning. S.6 of the Prevention of Eviction Act prohibits the eviction or attempt for eviction of a cultivating tenant from his holding notwithstanding any contract, custom or usage to the contrary. Sub-section (2) of S.6 makes an eviction and attempt to eviction both punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to Rs. 2000 or with both. If the contention of counsel of the fourth respondent is accepted, it would mean that if a tenant surrenders his holding voluntarily, the land-owner would be liable for punishment under S.6 (2) of the Prevention of Eviction Act, 1966. This leads to an absurd position; and Legislature cannot be taken to have intended such a thing, I, therefore, hold that on the facts alleged by the petitioners in this case there was no eviction of the fourth respondent. As already stated, the question whether the Church got possession of land by trespass as alleged by the fourth respondent, or by voluntary surrender pursuant to Ext. P-2, has not been considered either by the third respondent or by the second respondent. The fourth respondent would not be entitled to relief under S.7 (1) of the Kerala Prevention of Eviction Act, if it was a case of voluntary surrender of the land to the Church pursuant to Ext. P. 2. 5. In the result, I quash Ext. P.1. The second respondent will be at liberty to take up the fourth respondent's appeal to his file and dispose of the same according to law and in the light of the observations contained herein. No costs.