Judgment :- 1. This second appeal arises out of a final decree proceedings in a suit for partition. The defendant is the appellant in the second appeal. The suit for partition was laid on the basis that a Vechupakuthy arrangement evidenced by Ext. A dated 810 1111 had been entered into by the plaintiff with the defendant for a term of eight years under which one half of the pepper income and Rs. 2/-per year was to be paid to the plaintiff for a period of five years, and thereafter the payment was to be at the rate of Re. 1/-per acre and half the income from pepper. There was a clause in Ext. A that at the end of the term of the Vechupakuthy, one half of the property at the option of the landlord was to be his and the remaining half of the property with the improvements thereon was to be surrendered by document by the plaintiff to the defendant. The suit was laid after the expiry of the term and on the footing that in the light of the above stipulation the plaintiff was entitled to a half share in the property. A preliminary decree for partition of the half share was passed. In the final decree proceedings, the trial Court disallowed recovery of possession on the ground that the defendant was a tenant under the provisions of Act IV of 1961. On appeal, the lower appellate Court held that by virtue of the provision in Ext. A referred to earlier, the parties had become co-owners at the end of the term with the result that the plaintiff was entitled to recover one half of the property with proportionate mesne profits. This second appeal is directed against the said judgment of the lower appellate Court. 2. The contention urged is that by reason of the definition under S.2 (61) read with S.10 (iv) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Vechupakuthidar is a tenant and that under S.13 of the Act, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any contract or in any decree or order of court every tenant shall have fixity of tenure. It is therefore contended that despite and irrespective of the term of Ext. It is therefore contended that despite and irrespective of the term of Ext. A which provides for a share is the property in equal halves between the landlord and the tenant and despite the preliminary and final decrees for partition, the Vechupakutbidar is entitled to fixity of tenure as per the terms of S.13. The amplitude of the non-obstante clause and the language of the Section support the contention of the appellant. But counsel for the respondent stressed that under S.13, fixity of tenure is conferred on every tenant only "in respect of his holding". He drew my attention to the definition of the term holding in S.2 (17) of the Act, and in particular to Explanations I and II to the said definition. The definition reads as follows: - "'holding' means a parcel or parcels of land held under a single transaction by a tenant from a landlord and shall include any portion of a holding as above defined which the landlord and the tenant have agreed or are bound to treat as a separate holding. Explanation I- Where by act of parties or by operation of law, the interest of the tenant in his holding has been severed before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, splitting up the holding into two or more parts, or where a portion of the holding has been sub- leased, before the commencement of this Act, each such part or, as the case may be, each of the portions retained by the tenant and subleased, shall be deemed to be a separate holding. Explanation II, Any land in respect of which a person is deemed to be a tenant under S, 4, S.4A, S.5, S.6, S.6A, S.6B, S.7, S.7A, S.7B. S.7C, S.71), S.8, S.9, or S.10 or presumed to be a tenant under S.11 shall be a holding for the purpose of this Act." It was argued that by reason of the operation of the term in Ext. A which I have referred to earlier, there was an automatic severance of the holding before the commencement of the Act and a splitting up of the same into two parts. The argument proceeded that the one part of the holding having automatically become the landlord's, fixity of tenure can operate only in respect of the other half. There seems to be a fallacy underlying that argument. The clause in Ext. The argument proceeded that the one part of the holding having automatically become the landlord's, fixity of tenure can operate only in respect of the other half. There seems to be a fallacy underlying that argument. The clause in Ext. A is not capable of the construction that on the expiry of the term there was as automatic extinction of the landlord's proprietorship in the entire holding subject to the tenancy interest in respect of the same and a substitution of co-proprietorship between himself and the tenant in respect of the equal halves of the property. Were this the effect of the clause, it is impossible to understand the provision made that at the end of the term the landlord was to relinquish or surrender his rights in the other half to the tenant by executing a document. A Vechupakuthy document embodying a provision on similar lines was construed by a Division Bench of this Court in Chacko Aley v. Kurian Chacko (1960 KLT. 650). The Division Bench observed: "The only contention urged before us is that the provision we have underlined in the extract converts the relationship of landlord and tenant to that of co-owners on the expiry of 12 years from the date of the demise and that after the expiry 'of the said period of 12 years no 'holding' as defined in S.2 (1) of Act 1 of 1957 can be deemed to subsist. We find it impossible to accept the contention. Such agreement as to how the value for the tenant's improvements should be adjusted on the expiry of the term granted by the lease cannot possibly be construed as effecting on such expiry an automatic conversion of the relationship of landlord and tenant to one of co-ownership between the parties." Following the principle of the above decision, I am unable to agree with the contention that the clause in Ext. A brought out an automatic severance of the holding and a conversion of the landlord's proprietorship of the whole into a proprietorship of the half and a surrender of the other half to the tenant. Being so, I cannot accept the respondent's contention that the fixity of tenure can operate only in respect of one half of the holding. The decree of the lower appellate Court allowing recovery of possession cannot therefore be sustained. 3. Being so, I cannot accept the respondent's contention that the fixity of tenure can operate only in respect of one half of the holding. The decree of the lower appellate Court allowing recovery of possession cannot therefore be sustained. 3. Regarding the decree for mesne profits, there was no controversy that in view of the fact that the defendant continued as Vechupakuthidar and as a tenant, the plaintiff-respondent would be entitled to recover only the arrears of rent at the rate of Re. l/-per acre for a period of three years prior to the institution of the suit, and thereafter. 4. In the result, this second appeal is allowed, the decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. There will be no order as to costs. A. N. K. Allowed.