1. The decree in question, a decree for the redemption of what was called an Otti in the deed effecting the transaction, was made in 1956; and no question as to whether the defendant was entitled to fixity under Act I of 1964 could possibly have arisen. But if, as the defendant contends, the transaction, notwithstanding that it was called an Otti, satisfies the definition of a kanom in S.2(22) of Act I of 1964, there can be no doubt that the defendant would be a tenant, and that, notwithstanding the decree for redemption against him, the defendant would be entitled to fixity and be immune from eviction by reason of S.13. It was therefore necessary to determine whether the transaction was a kanom or other tenancy within the meaning of Act I of 1964 and the first court was clearly wrong in holding that the question was concluded against the defendant by the decree for redemption. The lower appellate court was therefore right in remitting the case to the first court for a determination of the question.

2. It is, of course, for the defendant to show that the transaction is a tenancy. This he can do on a bare construction of the deed itself. But if that fails him he would sti