The main legal point established is the interpretation of S.4 of Act I of 1957, which applies to suits for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent, or damages for use and occupation of the holding.

1. The only question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether O. S. No. 56 of 1957 of the Ernakulam Munsiff's Court has to be stayed under S.4 of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1957 (Act I of 1957) or not.

2. The suit seeks the recovery of certain arrears of michavarom alleged to be due under a kanom demise. Para.1 of the plaint speaks of the demise as follows:

The arrears claimed cover a period of 12 years 1120 M. E. to 1131 M. E. (both years inclusive).

3. The lower court dealt with the contention that the suit should be stayed as follows:

"The suit is for arrears of michavarom. It is argued for the plaintiff that the claim is for michavarom and not for pattom and that therefore Act 1/57 is not applicable. Act I is applicable to kanapattom also. This suit is therefore stayed under Act 1/57".

4. The revision petition states the contentions of the petitioner (Plaintiff) in the following terms:

"The lower court has illegally exercised its jurisdiction in finding that a suit for arrears of michavarom is hit by the provisions of Act 1/57. Act 1/57 does not warrant the stay of suits for arrears of michavarom and it is wrong to find that it will come under Kanapattom. The court below does not seem to have noted the distinction between Kanom and Kanapattom"

5. Joseph, J., referred the petition to a Division Bench by an order dated 5-6-1958:

"Place this before a D. B. as the question which arises in a number of suits in which lower courts are giving conflicting decisions has to be decided in this case";

and a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Koshi, C. J., and Vaidialingam, J., referred it to a Full Bench by an order dated 23-7-1958:

"For reasons stated in the order of reference of the learned Single Judge we think it desirable to have an authoritative decision of a full Bench of this Court on the question raised by this revision and accordingly refer the case for decision to a Full Bench."

6. S.4 of Act I of 1957 reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, with effect on and from the commencement of this Act, no suit or other proceedings for eviction of a person from his holding or for the recovery of arrears of rent in respect of, or for damages for use and occupation of, the holding accrued due before the commencement of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Ordinance, 1957, shall lie in any Court and all suits, proceedings in execution of decrees or orders and other proceedings pending in the courts at such commencement for such eviction or recovery of arrears of such rent or damages shall be stayed.

Provided that nothing in this section shall preclude the recovery of the rent or any instalment of rent if according to custom, usage or agreement, such rent or instalment of rent is payable and accruing after the day on which the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Ordinance, 1957, came into force".

The Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Ordinance, 1957, came into force on 11-4-1957 (29-8-1132 M. E.).

7. The definition of the expression "holding" given in S.2 (1) of Act I of 1957 is:

"'holding' means any immovable property held under a single transaction by which a leasehold right in the properly is created and possession of the property is transferred by one person in favour of another and includes Kanapattom".

8. The first contention urged before us is that "kanom" and "kanapattom"' are not synonymous in the Cochin area of this State wherein the lands concerned are situated, and as a result, we should hold that a suit for the arrears of dues under a kanom demise does not come within the purview of S.4 of Act I of 1957. There is no substance in this contention. The following passage from "Land Tenures of Cochin" by Tiruvenkatachariar makes the position clear:

9. The second contention urged before us is that "michavarom" is not "rent" and that it is only a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent - not a su