Judgment :- Balanarayana Marar, J. The short question for consideration in this revision is whether the 1st respondent is a tenant of an immovable property with the building thereon entitled to fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act or whether he is a lessee of a building-with the land appurtenant thereto exempted under S.3(1)(ii) of the Act. The Land Tribunal before whom the 1st respondent sought purchase of the rights of the landlord found him to be a tenant of immovable property and directed a purchase certificate to be issued. On appeal, the Appellate Authority (Land reforms ) concurred with the order of the Land Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. Hence the revision. 2. When the matter came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this court, it was felt that the document prima facie appears to be a lease of land and not a building. But in view of the unreported Division Bench decision of this Court in S.A.No.1293 of 1964, the learned single judge directed the case to be heard by a Division Bench. That is how the matter is now before us. 3. Heard counsel on both sides. 4. The question whether the lease is one in respect of immovable property with the building thereon or of a building with the appurtenant land depends on the intention of the parties which has to be ascertained on a construction of the various recitals in the document itself. Counsel for revision petitioner attempted to establish that the document evidences a lease of a building with me appurtenant site. The very same recitals were relied on by the 1st respondent to support his contention that the lease is of immovable property with the building thereon. Counsel for revision petitioner has also relied on two unreported decisions of this Court; one, a Division Bench decision in S. A.No.1293 of 1964 rendered on 23-9-1969 and the other, the decision of a Single Judge in S.A.No.858 of 1970 decided on 7-6-3974. Counsel for revision petitioner has also relied on two unreported decisions of this Court; one, a Division Bench decision in S. A.No.1293 of 1964 rendered on 23-9-1969 and the other, the decision of a Single Judge in S.A.No.858 of 1970 decided on 7-6-3974. On hearing counsel and on a perusal of the impugned orders and the decisions relied on by counsel, we are of the view that the document evidences a lease of immovable property with the building thereon and neither the Land Tribunal nor the Appellate Authority has decided the case erroneously or failed to decide any question of law so as to interfere under S.103 of the Land Reforms Act. 5. The document is in Kannada. An English translation is available in the file. Counsel on both sides submitted their arguments on the basis of this English translation, the correctness of which is not disputed. Learned counsel for revision petitioner draws attention to the recital in the document about the earlier entrustment dated 6-5-1947 in favour of Srinivasa Pai for a term of 11 months. A tiled house in R.S.112/1 in Kasaragod Kasaba along with some portion of the surrounding puncha land was leased as per the Chalgeni chit dated 6-5-1947. It is seen that in 1951 the tenant requested for more land which resulted in the execution of Ext. P1 chalgeni chit. The total extent of the land leased thereunder is 1.60 acres. Il is contended that though this much area was entrusted to the tenant, he was not given either the right to effect improvements or to claim the value of improvements effected by him. He was also not entitled to effect any repairs to the house without the written consent of the lessor or to demand expenses in connection with such repairs, if any, effected by him. There is prohibition against leasing out any portion or alienating the property in any manner. There is a restraint in the document against cutting any of the trees in the property. The monthly tent of Rs. 9/- fixed under the document was contracted to be paid by the 10th of every month. In case of default, the rent will carry interest at 5% per annum. The period of lease is one year. On contravening any of the terms of the lease, the lessor was entitled to cancel the lease and claim possession. 9/- fixed under the document was contracted to be paid by the 10th of every month. In case of default, the rent will carry interest at 5% per annum. The period of lease is one year. On contravening any of the terms of the lease, the lessor was entitled to cancel the lease and claim possession. An old tiled building in the property was not included in the lease. 6. Relying on these recitals learned counsel for revision petitioner would contend that the intention of the parties was only to create a lease of the building and the area adjoining the house was entrusted for the purpose of convenient enjoyment of the house. That, according to counsel, is manifested from the grant of lease in 1947'of the house with the surrounding land. That lease deed was not exhibited and it is not clear whether that lease related to the building and the appurtenant land. But from the recitals in Ext. P1 it would appear that the earlier lease of 1947 was in respect of a building with the surrounding land. But the question to be considered is whether there has been a lease of land under Ext. P1 and whether the intention of the parties then was to create a lease of the building with the adjoining land or a lease of the land with the building thereon. 7. Relying on the recitals in the very same document, learned counsel for the 1st respondent argues that the intention to lease land has been manifested in the document itself. Counsel relies on the second part of the first paragraph which makes mention of the request made by the lessee to grant a lease of some portion adjoining the leasehold property. It was in pursuance to that request the additional area was given and the geni chit executed. Counsel also draws attention to the second paragraph which makes mention of the lease of "the under mentioned property along with the house, in which No.2 is residing now and the bathroom constructed by the mulgars and the trees therein having been obtained from No.l on chalgeni....". Though the lessee was restrained from effecting improvements and was not entitled to claim value of improvements, the entrustment was for possession and enjoyment which is an ingredient of a lease, according to counsel. Though the lessee was restrained from effecting improvements and was not entitled to claim value of improvements, the entrustment was for possession and enjoyment which is an ingredient of a lease, according to counsel. The second part of the first paragraph mentions about possession and enjoyment of the property by the lessee. Paragraph 5 refers to the leasehold right of the lessee. Counsel also drew our attention to the way in which the property is described in the schedule. The property is described thus: - "R.S.No.112/1 (Old Sy.No. 58/1) western portion, about 1.60 acres in extent, puncha land, containing a tiled house wherein No.2 is residing bathroom 1, cocoanut plains 33 out of which 21 plants have begun yielding, jack plants 7, mango trees 7, cashew trees 50, Nellikkai trees 2, casuarinas trees 2 and other wild trees and plants, and the right to use the water of the well in R.S.112/2 etc. The old tiled stone building existing in the property is not included in the lease." 8. On a careful analysis of the various recitals contained in the document, the intention to grant a lease of the immovable property is manifested thereunder. True, the lessee had been in occupation of the building and the site appurtenant thereto under an earlier document. But the lessee wanted some more portion of the adjoining property and request was made to grant a lease of that portion. That is made clear from the recitals in the second part of the first paragraph which reads: - "While so, as per the request made by No. 2 to grant him lease of some portion adjoining the leasehold property and as agreed to by No. 1, the additional portion is taken possession of by No. 2 and this genichit is executed." What has been leased is mentioned as the property described in the schedule with the house and the improvements. In the schedule to the document, mention is made about the property first and the building and improvements thereafter. The intention of the lessee as manifested from the various recitals in the document is therefore to obtain more land on lease and the landlord has accepted to that request. A lease of immovable property with the building thereon is therefore created by that document. 9. The intention of the lessee as manifested from the various recitals in the document is therefore to obtain more land on lease and the landlord has accepted to that request. A lease of immovable property with the building thereon is therefore created by that document. 9. Counsel for the 1st respondent has drawn our attention to the nomenclature of the document in support of his contention that a lease was intended to be created. The document is styled as a chalgeni lease. The body of the document also mentions about genichit. "Tenant" as defined in S.2(57) of the Land Reforms Act includes the holder of a chalgeni lease. As per the Explanation to that sub-section "holder of a chalgeni lease" means a lessee or sub-lessee of specific immovable property situate in the taluk of Hosdurg or Kasaragod in the district of Camianore, who has contracted either expressly or impliedly to hold the same under a lease, whether for a specified period or not. The nomenclature of the document is also an indication to show that the intention was to create a term lease of the land and not of the building. 10. It is then contended by counsel for the 1st respondent that the extent of the property leased is comparatively large and cannot at ail be said to be the site appurtenant to a building. An area of 1.60 acres of land along with some improvements and a building is seen to have been leased under the document. The contention is that this much area cannot be said to be land appurtenant to the building. S.3(1)(ii)of the Land Reforms Act exempts leases only of buildings, including a house, shop or warehouse and the site thereof, with the land, if any, appurtenant thereto. What has been' exempted is only the lease of a building which may include appurtenant land also. The word "appurtenant" has not been defined in the Act. Counsel draws our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahanij Singh v. Stale of U.P. A.I.R 1976 SC 2602). The Supreme Court was considering the objective of S.9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (Act 1 of 1951). That Section settles in the intermediary all buildings and area appurtenant thereto. Counsel draws our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahanij Singh v. Stale of U.P. A.I.R 1976 SC 2602). The Supreme Court was considering the objective of S.9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (Act 1 of 1951). That Section settles in the intermediary all buildings and area appurtenant thereto. The Supreme Court observed that the touchstone of appurtenance is dependence of the building on what appertains to it for its use as a building. The Supreme Court referred to the following definition in "Words and Phrases Legally Defined" - Butterworths 2nd Edn. - " "Appurtenance', in relation to a dwelling, or to a school, college .... includes all land occupied (herewith and used for the purposes thereof .... "The word "appurtenances' has a distinct and definite meaning.... Prima facie it imports nothing more than what is strictly appertaining to the subject-matter of the devise or grant, and which would, in truth, pass without being specially mentioned. Ordinarily, what is necessary for the enjoyment and has been used for the purpose of the building, such as easements, alone will be appurtenant. Therefore, what is necessary for the enjoyment of the building is alone covered by the expression "appurtenance'." The Supreme Court observed that the hat, bazar or mela is not an appurtenance to the building. It was held that the law thus leads to the clear conclusion that even if the buildings were used and enjoyed in the past with the whole stretch of vacant space for a hat or mela, the land is not appurtenant to the principal subject grained by S.9. viz. buildings. The Supreme Court ultimately held that what the High Court has granted, viz. 5 yards of surrounding space, is sound in law although based on guesswork in fact. 11. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court aforementioned, a large area of 1.60 acres of land cannot be said to be land appurtenant to the building. What has been exempted under S.3(1)(ii) of the Act is only leases of buildings with appurtenant lands, if any. The lease must be one only of buildings and not building and land though appurtenant land may also include within that definition. The property mentioned in the schedule to Ext. What has been exempted under S.3(1)(ii) of the Act is only leases of buildings with appurtenant lands, if any. The lease must be one only of buildings and not building and land though appurtenant land may also include within that definition. The property mentioned in the schedule to Ext. P1 cannot by any stretch of imagination be held to be land appurtenant to the building since that much area is not necessary for the enjoyment of the building. The lease will not therefore come under the exempted category envisaged under S.3(1)(ii) of the Act. 12. One of the buildings is excluded from the lease and is alleged to have been retained by the lessor. This according to the counsel for revision petitioner amounts to an intention on the part of the lessor to retain the property and not to part with the same for enjoyment by the lessee. This stone building according to counsel for the 1st respondent is only a shed and not a regular structure. Whatever it be, the retention of that building by the lessor by itself cannot be taken as an intention against transfer for enjoyment by the lessee. Even though the lessee was restrained from effecting improvements, he has been given the right to take the yield from the existing improvements. In view of the grant of lease for enjoyment by the lessee, the retention of a building by the landlord is of no consequence. 13. A similar document has been interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in S. A.No.1293 of 1964, according to counsel for revision petitioner. The property in that case is situate in the heart of Kasaragod town. There is a building situated in the properly, the area of which comes to 1.33 acres. The schedule to the document also contains similar descriptions. The body of the document recites that the subject-matter of the demise is 1.33 acres of land together with the house standing thereon. That lease was of the year 1924. A Division Bench of this Court held that the document evidences only a lease of a building with the land appurtenant thereto. Reliance was also placed on the decision in S.A.No.858 of 1970 where also a similar document was construed to be a lease of building with appurtenant land, according to counsel. That lease was of the year 1924. A Division Bench of this Court held that the document evidences only a lease of a building with the land appurtenant thereto. Reliance was also placed on the decision in S.A.No.858 of 1970 where also a similar document was construed to be a lease of building with appurtenant land, according to counsel. A learned Single Judge of this Court in that decision has observed that the question whether the transaction is a lease of the land or of a building depends on the ascertainment of the intention of the parties at the time of execution of the document. 14. This Court had occasion to construe documents more or less similar in nature i n the two decisions aforementioned. But the intention of the parties has to be garnered on a reading of the entire document and the various recitals contained therein in particular. When so read, the intention to lease the land for enjoyment by the lessee is . clearly manifested in the document. That is made clear from the request made by the lessee in 1951 for additional land and the grant of additional land by the lessor for the enjoyment by the lessee. Earlier, the lessee was in occupation of the building and the surrounding land alone. Whatever may be the nature of the earlier transaction, the intention to create a lease under Ext. P1 is clear from the recitals contained therein. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for revision petitioner are therefore of no assistance to him. 15. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the authorities below have correctly consumed the document to be one creating a tenancy. No error has been committed in finding the 1st respondent to he a cultivating tenant entitled to fixity of tenure under the Land Reforms Act and in permitting him to purchase the rights of the landlords. No interference is called for in revision. 16. The revision is therefore dismissed, but without costs.