Judgment :- 1. The only question arising in this CRP. is whether the property in the possession of the 1st respondent who is a lessee of a mortgagee has become vested in the Government under S.72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964), as amended by Act 35 of 1969 (her in-after referred to as the Act), so much so that the revision-petitioners who are the mortgagees have become disentitled to the rent in respect of such property. The revision petitioner's family obtained mortgage rights in the property under a document of 1080 M. E. and by subsequent partition in the family these rights became vested in the petitioners. The land was leased out to the first respondent's father by the mortgagee and after the father's death the first respondent came into possession of the land. There is no evidence as to the date on which the lease was granted in favour of the father. 2. The petitioners filed an application before the Munsif-Land Tribunal, Alleppey, under S.26 of the Act for recovery of arrears of rent from the lessee for the period from 1968 to 1971. The application was allowed, but it was in substance rejected on appeal by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Alleppey, by its order dated 23rd July 1975. The Appellate Authority found that the mortgage was more than 50 years old and that the lessee had been in continuous possession of the property. That being the position, it was held that the lessee was a deemed tenant and the land of which such tenancy subsisted had become vested in the Government under S.72 of the Act. Accordingly it was held that the revision petitioners were not entitled to recover rent for the period subsequent to 1-1-1970 and the order of the Tribunal was modified to that extent. The appeal was thus allowed in part. It is that order which is challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. If S.72 of the Act applies to the land in question, all right, title and interest of the petitioners in such land vested in the Government on the appointed day. The petitioners, however, contended that, by virtue of the exemption contained in S.3 (1) (v), S.72 has no application. 3. If S.72 of the Act applies to the land in question, all right, title and interest of the petitioners in such land vested in the Government on the appointed day. The petitioners, however, contended that, by virtue of the exemption contained in S.3 (1) (v), S.72 has no application. The relevant portions of S.3 are as follows: "Chapter II Provision regarding tenancies EXEMPTIONS Exemptions - (1) Nothing in this Chapter shall apply to (v) tenancies in respect of land or of buildings or of both created by mortgagees in possession or by persons deriving title from such mortgagees: Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to such tenancies (iii) created before the commencement of this Act, where the lessee is entitled to fixity of tenure under S.4A; S. 4A dealing with deemed tenants reads: "4. Certain mortgagees and lessees of mortgagees to be deemed tenants.- (1) 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, a mortgagee with possession of land, other than land principally planted with rubber, coffee, tea or cardamom, or the lessee of a mortgagee of such land shall be deemed to be a tenant if - (a) the mortgagee or lessee was holding the land comprised in the mortgage for a continuous period of not less than fifty years immediately preceding the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969;... Explanation I. - For the purpose of this sub-section, in computing the period of continuos possession or occupation by a lessee, the period during which the mortgagee was in possession or occupation as the case may be, shall also be taken into account. Explanation II. - In computing the period of fifty years referred to in clause (a)...the period during which the predecessor-in-interest or predecessors-interest of the mortgagee or lessee was or were holding the property shall also be taken into account." 4. The above provisions make it clear that the exemption under S.3 does not apply to the land in question and therefore S.72 is in full operation as regards the rights, title and interest of the mortgagee. The above provisions make it clear that the exemption under S.3 does not apply to the land in question and therefore S.72 is in full operation as regards the rights, title and interest of the mortgagee. Clause (v) to subsection (1) of S.3 would not apply to a tenancy created before the commencement of the Act where the lessee is entitled to fixity of tenure by virtue of S 4A which deals with one class of deemed tenants. Under that provision if a lessee of a mortgagee has been holding the land for a continues period of not less than 50 years immediately preceding the Act, he is to be regarded as a deemed tenant entitled to fixity of tenure. Explanation I provides that in computing the period of continuous possession or occupation of the mortgagee's lessee, the period during which the mortgagee was in possession or occupation should also be taken into account. Explanation II states that in computing the period of 50 years, the period during which the predecessors-in-interest of the mortgagee or lessee were holding property should also be taken into account. It is thus clear that if the mortgagee or the lessee or the predecessors-in- interest of the mortgagee or lessee have been between them holding this property for a continuous period of not less than 50 years in the aggregate immediately before the commencement of the Act, the lessee of the mortgages would be regarded as having been in continuous possession for the requisite period and be thus treated as a deemed tenant entitled to fixity of tenure under S.4A. In the present case the property was in the possession of the mortgagees since 1080 M.E. until it was leased out to the 1st respondent's father and thereafter the lessees have been continuously in possession thereof. S.4A is thus attracted and hence the exemption under S.3 is not available. The landlord's rights therefore became vested in the Government under S.72 on the appointed day. In the circumstances we are of opinion that the appellate Authority was perfectly correct in holding that the revision petitioners were not entitled to recover arrears of rent for the period subsequent to 1-1-1970. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed, but the parties will bear their respective costs. Dismissed.