Judgment :- 1. This revision petition under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, arises out of an application filed under S.72-B of the Act for assignment of the right, title and interest of the land-holder in favour of the applicants, who claim to be cultivating tenants. This claim has been allowed by the Land Tribunal and confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority. 2. The right under S.72-B of the Act is available to a cultivating tenant. 'Cultivating tenant' is defined in S.2(8) thus: "cultivating tenant" means a tenant who is in actual possession of, any is entitled to cultivate, the lade comprised in his holding:" and 'cultivate' is again defined in S.2(7) thus: " cultivate" with its grammatical variations means cultivate either solely by one's own labour or with the help of the members of his family or hired labourers or both or personally direct or supervise cultivation by such members or hired labourers or both provided that such members or hired labourers have not agreed to pay or to take any fixed proportion of of the produce of the land they cultivate as compensation for being allowed to cultivate it or as remuneratic for cultivating it and in the case of a member of the Armed Forces or a seaman. "cultivation" includes cultivation on his behalf by any other person." 3. The jurisdiction to grant relief under the said section therefore arises only if the applicant is a cultivating tenant. 4. The applicants or the predecessors-in-interest were let into were let into possession under a lease deed dated 27-10-1950. The property is described thus: "Upstair Room 1 in tiled building. Two shop rooms in the down stairs. 3 side rooms in the east, thatched house, one outhouse, one well, coconut trees 29, plants 6, Guli plant 7, areca trees 4, jack trees 3, mango tree one, Baine tree one etc.", This covers an extent of 33 cents of land. This is situated in the heart of the Manjeswar Town in Kasargod Taluk. The rent is fixed at Rs. 5/- per month for the building and 31/2 maunds of coconut oil in respect of the garden land. 5. The Tribunal deputed a Revenue Inspector who reported that the applicant is a cultivating tenant. On this basis without showing anything further, the Tribunal decided in favour of the applicant. The rent is fixed at Rs. 5/- per month for the building and 31/2 maunds of coconut oil in respect of the garden land. 5. The Tribunal deputed a Revenue Inspector who reported that the applicant is a cultivating tenant. On this basis without showing anything further, the Tribunal decided in favour of the applicant. Its reasoning and conclusion reads thus: "Special Revenue Inspector's report Exhibit Cl prove that the applicant is a cultivating tenant. Hence point No.1 is answered in favour of the applicant". It would be clear that the Land Tribunal did not, in fact, apply its mind to the facts and to the problems and accepted mechanically the Special Revenue Inspector's report. The contention that it was only a building lease was rejected on the ground that there is only one lease in respect of the entire holding. 6. In appeal, the appellate authority did not accept the plea that it was a composite lease of building and land. It, however, found that there were 14 'structures' in the property and they were in enjoyment and possession of the applicants under the lease deed. It found the applicants to be cultivating tenants by stating thus: "I am of the opinion that since the tenancy over the land in which the building situated stands unchallengeably upheld, then there will be nothing to decide the tenancy over the buildings situated over that property ". After finding that the applicants are entitled to obtain assignment, the matter was sent back for fixing the fair rent and purchase price as the authority was not satisfied with the fixation of fair rent by the Land Tribunal. 7. I am afraid that the authorities have not considered the jurisdictional aspect correctly or with reference to the facts and evidence available before them. The authorities have rightly found that the lease in this case consists of buildings and of land. This is a case where there are several buildings on the land and those buildings have also been leased. The lease deed cannot be split up. The applicants are not cultivating tenants so far as buildings are concerned. The right to assignment of the landlord's interest can accrue in favour of cultivating tenant only in those cases where in respect of the entire lease, he can claim to be cultivating tenant. The lease deed cannot be split up. The applicants are not cultivating tenants so far as buildings are concerned. The right to assignment of the landlord's interest can accrue in favour of cultivating tenant only in those cases where in respect of the entire lease, he can claim to be cultivating tenant. If in respect of the substantial portion of the leasehold right, the tenant is not a cultivating tenant as defined under the Act, the said rights to assignment conferred under S.72-B will not be available. A reading of the lease deed in this case is sufficient to show that this is case where the applicants do not satisfy the definition of 'cultivating tenant' as the lease is mainly in respect of buildings and also includes incidentally some land. The authorities have therefore, wrongly exercised the jurisdiction to grant assignment in favour of the applicants. The orders are, therefore, set aside and the applications under S.72-B will stand dismissed. The C.R.P. is allowed. No costs. c