Judgment :- 1. Petitioner herein is a creditor who has advanced a sum of Rs. 2,750 on 7th May, 1983 on a mortgage to the first respondent. After coming into force of Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1976 the first respondent filed an application before the Debt Relief Tahsildar seeking a certificate of redemption of the said mortgage. The said application was opposed by the petitioner-creditor. The Debt Relief Tahsildar after enquiry held that the first respondent holds both as owner as well as a lessee more than one unit of land and, therefore, he is not entitled to claim the benefits under the said Act. On appeal by the first respondent, the second respondent however held that the first respondent is entitled to the benefits of the Act on two grounds—(i) that his income is less than Rs. 4,800 and (ii) that he holds less than one unit of land. The said order of the second respondent has been challenged in this writ petition by the creditor. 2. On a due consideration of the matter, I find that both the grounds set out by the second respondent holding that the first respondent is entitled to the benefits of Act 31 of 1976 cannot legally be sustained. 3. Firstly, the appellate authority apparently has not seen the provisions of the Act which he is administering. He has found that the first respondent is getting an income of less than Rs. 4,800 overlooking the fact that the limit provided under the provisions of Act 31 of 1976 is Rs. 2,400 per annum and not Rs. 4,800. Even if the first respondents income is less than Rs. 2,400, still if he holds more than one unit of land, he will not be entitled to the benefits of the Act. The reasoning given by the appellate authority to hold that he holds lands less than one unit of land cannot be sustained on the materials on record. The appellate authority proceeds on the basis of the statement of the village karnam which has been taken by the Debt Relief Tahsildar. The village karnam has stated that the first respondent owns 149 acres of wet land and 66 2/3rd cents of land on a lease. As a matter of fact, the appellate authority has referred to the contents of the statement given by the karnam. The village karnam has stated that the first respondent owns 149 acres of wet land and 66 2/3rd cents of land on a lease. As a matter of fact, the appellate authority has referred to the contents of the statement given by the karnam. If the karnams statement is to be taken as a basis as has been done by the appellate authority, then the first respondent owns 1.49 acres of wet land and has got 66-2/3rd cents of wet land as lessee,. For the purpose of finding out Whether the first respondent is entitled to the benefits of the Act, we have to see the definition of ‘small farmer’ occurring in S. 3(1). It is as follows:— “‘Small farmer’ means a person whose principal means of livelihood is income derived from agricultural land and who holds, whether as owner, tenant or mortgagee with possession or partly in one capacity and partly in another; (i) Not more than two units of land in a case where such parson is a member of any of the Scheduled Tribes; and (ii) Not more than one unit of land in any other case.” Therefore, the lands taken on lease by the first respondent should also be added to the land owned by him for the purpose of finding out whether the lands held by him is less than one unit or more than one unit of land as contemplated by the section. One unit of has been defined to mean:— 1. Two hectares of unirrigated land; or 2. Half hectare of land having facilities for growing one irrigated crop; or 3. Half hectare of land used for growing any plantation crop or grapes or coconut or arecanut or mulberry; or 4. Quarter hectare of land having perennial irrigation facilities, or having facilities for growing more than one irrigated crop in a year. 4. In this case, admittedly the first respondent owns 1.49 acres of wet land, which is more than half hectare of land referred to in clause (2) of the definition of one unit of land. Even without taking into account the leasehold land the first respondent owns more than one unit of land. 4. In this case, admittedly the first respondent owns 1.49 acres of wet land, which is more than half hectare of land referred to in clause (2) of the definition of one unit of land. Even without taking into account the leasehold land the first respondent owns more than one unit of land. As a matter of fact, even the first respondent has admitted in his evidence before the Debt Relief Tahsildar, that he owns 1.49 acres of wet land and that he is also holding lands under tenancy of 200 kuzhis, which means 662/3rd cents of land. Thus if the extent of land held by the first respondent both as owner and as tenant is taken into account, admittedly be holds more than one unit of land, in which case he cannot claim the benefits of the Act, whatever be his annual household income. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the appellate authority is set aside and that of the original authority is restored. There will be no order as to costs.