UMMERKUTTY HAJI Vs. ASSAN HAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is in a suit for rent due under the kanom kychit, evidenced by Ext. A 1 dated September 28, 1950.

(2.) Ext. B 1 dated January 18, 1942, is the original kanom between the parties under which the kanom amount was Rs. 50/- and the annual rent Rs. 30/-. No definite term was stipulated in that deed. On August 11, 1944, it was renewed for a term of 6 years by Ext. B 2 raising the kanom amount to Rs. 100/- and the annual rent to Rs. 66/-. Ext. A 1 is a kychit, in renewal of Ext. B 2, executed by the defendant agreeing to pay an enhanced rent of Rs. 110/- per annum. It is conceded that the rent upto 1131 M.E. had been paid according to Ext. A 1 This suit is for the rent for 1133 M.E. (1957-58). The defendant contended that Exts. B 2 & A 1 are invalid and that therefore he is bound to pay only the rent stipulated under Ext. B 1. The courts below accepted his plea and decreed rent as per Ext. B 1. The plaintiff has come up in second appeal.

(3.) S.17, the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, originally, provided: A kanamdar shall, on the expiry of the kanam under which he holds, be entitled to claim and his immediate landlord shall be bound to grant a renewal, enuring for a period of twelve years, of the same on payment, as renewal fee a sum calculated as per the rest of the section. In K.P. Soopi v. R. Kanaran ( AIR 1958 Mad. 71 ) Govinda Menon, J. observed that without a specific consideration or justification there can be no increase of rent or purappad in the case of renewals under S.17 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. In finding Exts. B 2 & A 1 void ab initio and unenforceable the Courts below relied largely on the above observation. I am afraid neither Ext. B 2 nor Ext. A 1 can be characterised as a renewal under S.17 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. According to counsel for the respondent, Ext. B 1, not having been stipulated to be for any term, must be taken as a kanom for 12 years, expiring by 1954. Exts. B 2 and A 1 were them long before the expiry of the prior kanom; there was no payment of renewal fee for either; & both were for a term of 6 years only. Thus none of the incidents of a renewal under S.17 is present in Ext. B 2 or Ext. A 1. Obviously therefore, Exts. B 2 & A 1 are not renewals under S.17 and the observations in K.P. Sooppi v. R. Kanaran do not straightaway apply to them.