1. Defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit was for arrears of jenmikaram and renewal fee for the period from 1956 December to 1964 January. It is unnecessary to detail the facts giving rise to the suit or to this second appeal, as Counsel for the appellant very fairly stated before me that the merits of the appeal were concluded against him by an earlier decision on similar facts in second Appeal 731 of 1967, which he made ho attempt to attack or distinguish. Following the same, this second appeal must fail on the merits.

2. The only contention that was urged by Counsel for the appellant was that this second appeal is liable to be stayed under S.4 of the Kerala Cultivators and Tenants (Temporary Protection) Act 1970 (Act 20 of 1970). That it is so liable to be stayed, if the suit relates to recovery of arrears of rent, seems clear enough; and the contention was, that jenmikaram is 'rent' as defined by the Kerala Act I of 1964 as amended. But a look at the relevant provisions of the concerned Acts, is sufficient to repel this contention. S.2 clause (13) of the Kanam Tenancy Act defines jenmikaram as follows:

"2. (13). "Jenmikaram" in respect o