The main legal point established is that for a transaction to constitute a lease, it must grant exclusive possession and demonstrate an intention to transfer an interest in the property.

1. The defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The plaintiff's suit was for eviction with past and future rent. The suit was based on Ext. A executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. In that he had undertaken to cultivate the vacant space in the properties scheduled in Ext. A and to pay the plaintiff a rent of Rs. 60/-. Out of this he was to appropriate Rs. 10/- towards fencing and other miscellaneous expenses. The defendant was allowed to cultivate the vacant space only for one year. The plaintiff stated that the defendant had no right of possession over the trees and the house in the compound, that he was only to raise vegetable crops and that he was to surrender whatever possession he had after the expiry of one year. The defendant had not surrendered possession after one year and so the prayer was for recovery of possession of whatever right the plaintiff had over Ext. A property and to order payment of past rent and settlement of accounts and future rent at the rate of Rs. 85 a year.

2. The defendant contested the suit. He objected to the enhanced rent claimed and contended that he had discharged the whole dues to the plaintiff. He had also a contention that he was not liable to be evicted as he was to be deemed to be a Verumpattomdar mentioned in Act VIII of 1118. The courts below had concurrently found that he would not come under the category of Verumpattomdar as understood in Act

VIII of 1118, that he was liable to surrender the property, that the discharge pleaded was not true, that the plaintiff was not entitled to enhance the rent and that the property could be delivered over to the plaintiff only with past and future rent at the rate provided for in Ext. A.

3. The question for consideration is whether Ext. A would come under the category of a lease as defined in the Transfer of Property Act XVIII of 111. The lease is not defined in the Cochin Verumpattomdars Act VIII of 1118 and so the Pattom or lease contemplated therein would be governed by the definition of the term in the Cochin Transfer of Property Act. A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms. The word "enjoy" used in this definition has been the subject of comment in several cases and the result of a comparative study of the same is thus mentioned at page 1609, Vol. III of the Commentaries of the Transfer of Property Act by Chitaley and Rao, 1950 Edn.

"The word "enjoy" is, however, not used as the equivalent of "possess". The connotation of the word "possession" as used in the Act is distinct from "enjoyment" and does not necessarily include enjoyment. This is clear from Ss. 58 and 76 of the Act. Those sections show that though a usufructuary mortgage is entitled to the possession of the mortgaged property, he is not entitled to the enjoyment of the property. Because, the usufruct of the property is treated as belonging not to the mortgagee but to the mortgagor. The mortgagee has only the right to receive such usufruct and reimburse himself for his debt from it. Under a lease, however, the usufruct of the property belongs to the lessee. The transfer of a bare right of possession without the right to the usufruct is not a lease. Thus, the word "enjoy" seems to be used in the sense of the beneficial occupation of property. Such a meaning is not inconsistent with the literal sense of the word. Because the meaning of this word is to occupy as a good or profitable thing."

"There must be a transfer of the exclusive right of possession of the leased property in order to constitute a lease. The continuance in the transferor, after the transfer, of any share in the right of possession is detrimental