Judgment :- 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of, possession of immovable properties with profits, past and future, on the strength of title. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff, a life-interest holder, claimed recovery of possession of the plaint lands on the allegation that the appellant was not entitled to fixity ;of tenure under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (Act I of 1964), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The respondent-plaintiff admitted in the plaint that the appellant had cultivated the land on pankuvaram arrangement till 1137 (1961-1962). But, according to the respondent, the appellant had set up verumpattom tenancy in the land and was continuing in possession without paying rent. 2. The appellant contended in the lower Court that he was a verumpattom tenant. This contention was found against. His further contention that even if he was only a varomdar he was a deemed tenant and was therefore entitled to fixity of tenure was negatived by the lower Court and it is the correctness of this finding that is attacked in this appeal. The lower Court disposed of this question on an interpretation of S.13 and clause (vi) of S.3(1) of the Act. It held that S.3 (1) (vi) specifically excluded the application of Chapter II of the Act to tenancies created by persons having only life-interest. According to the lower Court the first proviso to S.3 (1) would also not apply as that speaks of only S.13 to 26 in Chapter II and not S.8 and 10. On this basis the trial Court held that the appellant could not be considered as a deemed tenant. 3. Under S.2 (57) of the Act, a tenant includes a person who is deemed to be a tenant under S.8 or 10 of the Act. S.8 of the Act read with S.6 of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1957, makes it clear that any person who is a varomdar and who is entitled to cultivate the land after the 11th day of April, 1957, will be deemed to be a tenant, provided that he was cultivating the land at the commencement of the Act. On the allegations in Para.3 in the plaint the appellant has been cultivating the land as a varomdar some years before 1959-60 so that it is reasonable to infer that in 1957 he must have been cultivating the land as a varomdar. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the appellant was not cultivating the nilam as a varomdar at the commencement of the Act, and therefore, be cannot be classified as a deemed tenant. We are not prepared to accept this plea in view of the specific recitals in Para.6 and 7 of the plaint. The last sentence in Para.6 specifically mentions that in 1138, 1139 and 1140 although the defendant harvested the entire crops, he had not been giving the proportionate share due to the plaintiff. The year 1140 would correspond to 1964-65 and it is clear that the plaintiff has the grievance that the share due to him for that year had not. been paid. The claim of the plaintiff that he was entitled to a share of the yield is consistent only with the plea that the appellant is a varomdar and it is not open to the respondent now to say that he was not cultivating the land as a varomdar. Similarly in Para.6 there is also a definite allegation that although the plaintiff would be justified in claiming profits repudiating the varom arrangement still he was only claiming the share due to him under the said arrangement. In the face of these recitals in the plaint, the inference is irresistible that in 1964 when the Act came into force, the appellant was cultivating the land as a varomdar. 4. It may also be noticed that on the plaintiffs own admission the appellant was cultivating the land on varom arrangement when Act IV of 1961 came into force. The next relevant legislation is Act VII of 1963, where a tenant is defined as including a varomdar and therefore the appellant had the status of a tenant under this Act. Act VII of 1963 was repealed by Act I of 1964 and it therefore follows that the appellant was continuously in occupation as varomdar till the commencement of the Act. The respondent's contention that the appellant was not cultivating the land at the commencement of Act I of 1964 has therefore to fail. 5. Act VII of 1963 was repealed by Act I of 1964 and it therefore follows that the appellant was continuously in occupation as varomdar till the commencement of the Act. The respondent's contention that the appellant was not cultivating the land at the commencement of Act I of 1964 has therefore to fail. 5. The next contention of respondent's counsel is based on the wording of clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of S.3 of the Act, which runs as follows: "3. ' Exemptions-(I) Nothing in this Chapter shall apply to (vi) tenancies in respect of land or of buildings or of both created by persons having only life interest or other limited interest in the land or in the buildings or in both:" What is contended is that tenancies created by persons having life intereat alone are covered by this clause, that the tenancy in this case being a deemed tenancy has been created by a statute and therefore clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of S.3 has no application. A varomdar has been brought within the ambit of the definition of 'tenant', no doubt by the provisions of the statute. But the varom arrangement has been created by the life-interest holder, and therefore, the arrangement is a varom created by contract. If varom arrangement is equated to tenancy, it would follow that a contractual varomdar becomes a contractual tenant and he cannot be considered to be a tenant created by statute. We are unable to accept the case advanced on behalf of the respondent. 6. The respondent's counsel brought to our notice the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Second Appeal No. 1169 of 1964, That decision does not in our opinion advance the case of the respondent. There, it was found that the varom arrangement had not continued beyond the period of one year for which it was granted and that the varom arrangement stood terminated before the Act came into force. The Court therefore held that the appellant in that case did not have the status of a varomdar at the relevant time. The facts are totally different so far as the present case is concerned and the decision cannot therefore apply to the facts of this case. 7. It follows that the appellant is a deemed tenant, and therefore a tenant, entitled to fixity of tenure. The facts are totally different so far as the present case is concerned and the decision cannot therefore apply to the facts of this case. 7. It follows that the appellant is a deemed tenant, and therefore a tenant, entitled to fixity of tenure. The judgment and decree of the lower Court are reversed and the suit is dismissed. In the circumstances of the cases we direct the parties to bear their costs throughout.