JUDGMENT

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.:—This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the Second Appeal preferred by him.

2. The suit property was mortgaged by one Raman Pillai in favour of Madhav Pillai. Plaintiff purchased the equity of redemption from the daughter of Raman Pillai. First defendant in the suit is the assignee of the mortgagees right whereas defendants 2 to 5 are his children. The plaintiff filed the suit for redemption of the mortgage. The defendant pleaded inter alia that by virtue of Section 4-A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, he should be deemed to be a tenant, entitled to fixity of tenure. Trial Court upheld his plea on the finding that he has been holding the land comprised in the mortgage for a continuous period of not less than 50 years immediately preceding the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 as contemplated by Section 4-A. On that basis, it dismissed the suit. Appellate Court affirmed, the said view and dismissed the appeal. Plaintiff thereupon preferred the Second Appeal which too has been dismissed following the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Parameshwaran Pillai v. Narayanan Nair, 1976 Ker LT 341.

3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/ appellant submitted that the land in question, of an extent of 12 cents, is not an agricultural land but a house site (with a building thereon) situated in the heart of Trivandrum city. Since the suit land is not an agricultural land, Kerala Land Reforms Act has no application. the courts below were, therefore, in error in extending the. benefit of Section 4-A of the Act to the plaintiff. In support of his contention, he relied upon certain decisions, which we shall presently refer.

4. Section 4-A is in force at the relevant time, and in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case, reads thus:

4(A). 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 tenant if-

(B) 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; or....

5. The expression land is not defined in the Act. All the same, contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the expression land occurring in the Act as also in Section 4-A should be understood having regard to the object underlying the Act and the purpose for which it was enacted. Since it is a measure of agrarian reform, he submits, the Act should be understood as confined to agricultural land only.

6. For answering the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, it would have been necessary to examine the scheme of the enactment in the light of its provisions, but we are relieved of the task by several illuminating decisions of the Kerala High Court and of this court on the subject. A brief reference to them may be appropriate at this stage.

7. In Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala (AIR 1971 Kerala 98) the validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, in particular the provisions introduced by Amendment Act 35/69 (inter alia imposing a ceiling upon the holdings of agricultural land) was questioned. The only defence available to the State at that stage was Article 31 (A) of the Constitution. The contention of the petitioners, however, was that some of the provisions of the Act are wide enough, on their wording, to apply to non agricultural lands as well and, therefore, the Act cannot be said to be "a measure of agrarian reform". For the said reason, it was argued, the Act cannot have the protection of Article 3