That is a very specific contract, so you are unlikely to find someone who has seen exactly the same thing. But it was quite common for an elderly landholder to grant land to their child in return for providing for them for the rest of their life.
You might wonder, if they love their child enough to just give them land, why not just trust that the child will do right by their parents? I.e., why not just make a deed of gift, without the quid pro quo. Many parents did. But the added obligation gives a little security. For instance, if the child became incapacitated and was appointed a guardian, the deed would still ensure that the guardian could not just cut out the parent. And of course, you never know if a child will someday have a falling out or come under evil influence and decide to cut the parent out.
Here, the man may have owned the property but had some condition that kept him from making a living off of it. One solution would be to rent the property, but another is the one in the deed you found. Was the care for the lifetime of the man and/or daughter, or a fixed term? A lifetime annuity would provide more security than a fixed-term tenant. Did it say the contract would become void under a condition, say if the daughter married?
Then there is the special case of a “three lives lease”, which was a really interesting arrangement and fantastical useful for genealogy. But that doesn’t sound like what you are describing, and I don’t know how common it was in Virginia at the time. I think America had so much “available land” that there was less use of that contract than just outright grants and purchases.
