The interpretation of 'rent' to include land revenue payable by the kanomdar on behalf of the jenmi under Madras Act IV of 1938.

Wadsworth, J.

1. This revision petition raises questions under Sections 15 and 16 of Madras Act IV of 1938. The petitioner here is the jenmi. The application filed in the lower Court was made by a number of persons claiming to represent the whole of the interest in the kanom right. The original kan9m demise was made On 10th June, 1919, under Ex. A to the tarwad of which some of the present applicants were then members. There was a partition in the tarwad of the kanomdars and various tavazhis became entitled to portions of the kanom right. Some of these tavazhis alienated their rights and the present application under Section 15 was made by all the persons interested in the kanom right whether as representing the tavazhis of the original kanomdars tarwad or as alienees from such tavazhis. The trial Court held that the application was valid and reduced the rent payable in accordance with the terms of Section 15.

2. Two contentions were argued on behalf of the jenmi before us. Firstly, it was contended that the application was bad in that it was a joint application made by a number of persons some of whom were alienees of portions of the land from the original kanomdars, while others were interested in the kanom right as a result of the partition. We have had to deal with a similar question in disposing of C.R.P. No. 854 of 1939 in which judgment is to be pronounced shortly and we are of opinion that an alienee of the whole of the tenants interest in a portion of his holding is a person who is liable to pay rent in respect of that portion and provided that he is an agriculturist, is entitled to deposit the arrears of the holding for faslis 1346 and 1347 and obtain the benefits of Section 15.

3. A further contention raised was based on the provisions of Section 16 on the strength of which it was argued that the deposit to be made under Section 15 should include not only the rent for the two faslis named but also any arrears of land revenue paid by the landholder which the tenant was bound to pay by reason of contract. It seems to us that this contention, in the way in which it was put, has no merits. Section 16 saves the landholders right to recover from his tenant anything which the landholder has paid which should have been paid by the tenant. But it does not make these sums part of the deposit contemplated in Section 15. All that it does is to safeguard the landholders right to recover these sums in addition to that which is recoverable under Section 15. It does not provide a machinery for the recovery but it leaves the landholder to his ordinary right of suit.

4. In the course of arguments, however, it was suggested that though Section 15 relates only to that which is payable as rent and requires a deposit only of the rent for faslis 1346 and 1347, having regard to the definitions in Madras Act IV of 1938 and the Malabar Tenancy Act, the rent payable by a kanomdar includes the land revenue which the kanomdar has undertaken to pay on behalf of the jenmi. The arguments may be put in this way. By Section 3(iv) of Madras Act IV of 1938 rent means, among other things, rent or michavaram as defined by the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929. Michavaram is defined in Section 3(q) of the Malabar Tenancy Act as "whatever is agreed by a kanomdar in a kanom deed to be paid periodically, in money or in kind, or in both, to or on behalf of the jenmi." By the terms of Ex. A the kanom deed in the present suit, it is clear that the kanomdar is required to pay the land revenue on behalf of the jenmi and that the amount of this land revenue is deducted in arriving at the balance payable to the jenmi who is given a right to charge the kanomdars interest for arrears of sircar kist recovered from the jenmi himself. It does not appear that we are concerned with a case of the kind contemplated in Sections 14 and 15 of the Malabar Land Registration Act under which the kanomdar may be registered as a joint pattadar and be given a direct liability to pay the