Judgment :- 1. This revision arises from O.A.485/73, a proceeding initiated by the petitioner under S.72B. K.L.R.Act. 2. The authorities below dismissed the application entering the finding that the tenancy set up by the petitioner is one to which the provisions of Chapter II K.L.R.Act will not apply in view of S.3(1) (vi). I have in my judgment disposing of the connected Second Appeal 467/88 found that the lease in favour of the petitioner is one granted by an absolute owner and if that be the position, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Chapter II K.L.R.Act. 3. I could have straight away held that the petitioner therefore is entitled to purchase the right, title and interest of the landowner but for the argument of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that at the relevant time the petitioner admittedly was not in possession of the land and as such he cannot be said to be a cultivating tenant within the meaning of the Act. In support of this argument he made reference to Ext.A3, the agreement dated 15-5-1974 showing that the second respondent admittedly is in possession of the land. The question thus arising for consideration is, whether the petitioner under the circumstances indicated above, is entitled to maintain the petition? 4. That the second defendant is in possession of the property cannot be disputed. That she is cultivating the land since 1974 cannot be challenged. In short, since 1974 the second respondent has been in possession and also has been cultivating the land. 5. These facts should be borne in mind while considering the question formulated above. Now we will consider the scope of S.72 and 72B K.L.R. Act. S.72 provides that on a date to be notified by the Government in this behalf in the Gazette, all right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in respect of holdings held by cultivating tenants (including holders of kudiyiruppus and holders of karaimas) entitled to fixity of tenure under S.13 and in respect of which certificates of purchase under sub-section (2) of S.59 have not been issued, shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, vest in the Government free from all encumbrances created by the land-owners and intermediaries and subsisting thereon on the said date. The proviso to sub-section (1) and other sub-sections are unnecessary to be considered in the context. The proviso to sub-section (1) and other sub-sections are unnecessary to be considered in the context. S.72B provides that the cultivating tenant of any holding or part of a holding, the right, title and interest in respect of which have vested in the Government under S.72 shall be entitled to assignment of such right, title and interest. A cultivating tenant entitled to purchase the right, title and interest of the landowner shall satisfy the following requirements. On the date notified by the Government namely, 1-1-1970 he must be a cultivating tenant entitled to fixity to tenure under S.13 and in respect of which certificate of purchase under sub-section 2 of S.59 has not been issued. Such a tenant under S.72B is entitled to assignment of the right, title and interest vested in the Government under S.72. A cultivating tenant who is in possession of the land as on 1-1-1970 therefore is entitled to apply for and obtain the purchase certificate under S.72B. It is clear from the plain and unambiguous words employed in these sections that the object in issuing the purchase certificate is to recognise the person, who is in possession of the holding on 1-1-1970, entitled to cultivate the same as the absolute owner of the holding. The definite Article 'The' put before the words "the cultivating tenant of any holding", the right, title and interest in respect of which have vested in the Government under S.72 in S.72B makes it abundantly clear that only the tenant who can claim to be in possession of the holding on 1-1-1970 is entitled to purchase the right, title and interest, notwithstanding the fact that he lost possession of the property subsequently. He can therefore institute suit for recovery of the property, possession of which he lost subsequent to 1-1-1970, on title. Any other interpretation would defeat the object sought to be achieved by these sections. That the petitioner admittedly was a tenant in possession of the property on 1-1-1970 and as such entitled to apply for and obtain the purchase certificate is beyond dispute. If that be so, his application under S.72B is maintainable. The authorities below however, have held that he is not entitled to maintain the petition because at the time when the petition came up for consideration, the second respondent has been in possession of the land by virtue of Ext. A3. If that be so, his application under S.72B is maintainable. The authorities below however, have held that he is not entitled to maintain the petition because at the time when the petition came up for consideration, the second respondent has been in possession of the land by virtue of Ext. A3. The findings of the authorities below in the light of what is stated above, are liable to be vacated: The application of the petitioner under S.72B accordingly is allowed and the Tribunal is directed to issue the purchase certificate to the petitioner. C.R.P. is allowed. No costs.