The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 16(6) and (8) of Act XXIV of 1955, governing the payment of renewal fees for kanam-tenants, and the court's finding that the provisions did not discriminate and were applicable to all kanam-tenants subject to the liability to pay renewal fees.

S. Velu Pillai, J.

1. The suit that has led to this civil miscellaneous appeal, was by a jenmi, to enforce payment of renewal fees which became payable on Edavom 2, 1128 M. E., and was instituted in the year 1954, when the Cochin Tenancy Act, Act XV of 1113, was in force. That Act was repealed by the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955 Act XXIV of 1955 which came into force on March I, 1956. Though the first Court held otherwise, the appellate Court decided, that the suit is maintainable under both these enactments, but remanded it, for ascertaining the michavaram payable, as under Section 16(6) and (8) of Act XXIV of 1955, renewal fee payable is the equivalent, of one year's michavaram or of the renewal fee payable under Act XV of 1113, whichever is less, and for passing a decree for renewal fees accordingly. The plaintiff has preferred this C. M. Appeal against the order of remand, as according to her learned counsel, the provisions of Act XXIV of 1955 are not applicable and the renewal fee as sued for, is recoverable.

2. It was first contended, that the suit having been instituted before Act XXIV of 1955 is not governed by that Act. Act XV of 1113 and others were repealed by Section 51 (1) of Act XXIV of 1955 and Section 51 (2) has provided that,

the suits stayed under the provisions of the enactments so repealed shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

The present suit was not stayed under the provisions of any enactment whatever, and so Section51(2) does not in terms apply. But Sections 16(6) and 16(8) of Act XXIV of 1955 have provided as follows:-

Sec. 16(6): Where according to the terms of contract of kanam, renewal fees are commencement of this Act, and no renewal fees have been paid, the aggregate amount of the renewal fees payable under the contract of kanam in respect of such periods or periods shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (8) be payable by the kanam-tenant to the jenmi within a period of three years from the commencement of this Act or with interest at six per cent per annum thereafter within a further period of three years.

(8): For the purpose of this Section the renewal fees shall be deemed to be one year's michavaram or the renewal fee payable under the Cochin Tenancy Act, XV of 1113,whichever is less.

The meaning is clear, that is, in a case which falls within the scope of these provisions, he renewal fee which the tenant can be called upon to pay, is only what is prescribed by sub-section (8): in other words, whenever the suit was instituted, after the Act came into force, no decree could be passed for renewal fee in excess of that prescribed by sub-section (8). The question therefore does not really turn so much upon the application of Section 51(2), as upon, whether in passing the decree, what the statue ordains, should not be given effect to. We see no reason why it should not be.

3. The second question is whether section 16(6) applies to the present case. In order that it may apply, three conditions have to be fulfilled, two of which have, according to the plaintiff's learned counsel, been satisfied, that is, that renewal fees are payable under the terms of the contract of kanam on the expiry of a specified period, and that two periods have expired at the commencement of Act XXIV of 1995, but maintained, that the third condition, that no renewal fees have been paid, that is, that the tenant should have defaulted for all the periods which have expired at the commencement of that Act, has not been fulfilled. The document of kanam was of the year 1104 M. E., the first period of renewal expired in the year 1116 M. E. and the second in the year 1128 M. E., but the renewal fee for 1128. The point of the argument was, that unless the tenant was in default in the payment of renewal fees for all the periods, and not merely for the last period, sub-section (6) can have no application. We cannot agree, that on a reasonable interpretation, sub-section (6) of Section 16 is susceptible