Madhavan Nair, J.
1. In these appeals preferred by kanam tenants governed by the Travancore-Cochin Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955, the only controversy is of the correctness of calculation of Jenmikarams payable by them to their jenmis under the Act. It has been ruled by Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J., in S. A. Nos. 1150 and 1151 of 1962 (Ker) and by Narayana Pillai, J., in S. A. Nos. 1533 and 1534 of 1965 (Ker) that neither land revenue, nor a remission allowed for natural vicissitudes, can be deducted in the calcula-tion of 'michavaram' within the meaning of the abovesaid Act. Counsel for appellants here challenges the correctness of those dicta.
2. Jenmikaram is defined in the Act as the suiu total of michavaram and fractional fee. The fractional fees fixed by the Court below are not disputed: the controversy here is only as to the correctness of michavarams found.
3. Michavaram is defined in Section 2 of the Act thus:
' 'Michavaram' means the balance of money or produce or both payable periodically under the contract of tenancy to the jemni after deducting from the pattam the interest due on the kanam amount and puramkadam, if any.'
'Pattam' is also defined therein as meaning
'the jenmi's share as fixed by the contract of tenancy of the produce of the holding whether in money or in kind or both, but does not include renewal fee.'
Obviously, 'pattam' is what has been stipulated as pattam in the document of tenancy; and 'michavaram' is such pattam minus the interest due on the kanartham (i.e., the kanam amount plus puramkadam, if any). Counsel for appellants urges that as the documents of tenancy oblige the tenants to pay land revenue and provide for reimbursement thereof by deduction of part of the pattam in terms of paddy, only the net amount after such deduction can be taken as the pattam for purposes of calculation of michavaram under the Act. We are afraid that this contention is not one of construction of the definition in the Act, but for an improvement thereof. Under the law of property, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the liability to pay revenue is on the jenmi or landlord. When the contract of tenancy has fixed the pattam as so many parahs of paddy and directed the tenant to pay the land revenue and for that to deduct so many parahs of paddy out of the pattam payable, the jcnmi is only honouring his liability to pay the revenue, constituting the tenant as his agent for its remittance and Compensating him therefor. A significant change has been made in the law by the Act, the Travancore-Cochin Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955, which conferred ownership of the land on the kanarn-tenant, and limited the jenmi's right to receipt of jenimikaram thereon. Section 16 (5) of the Act has provided that 'notwithstanding any usage or contract to the contrary, the kanam-tenant shall be liable to pay all Government and local taxes in respect of the land comprised in his holding whether existing at the time of the demise or imposed afterwards' and defined michavaram as pattam minus interest on kanartham. The contention that land revenue which is payable to the State by the tenant must also be deducted from the jenmi's dues or michavaram ignores the law in Section 16 (5) of the Act and cannot be accepted.
4. The contract of tenancy concerned in S. A. No. 574 of 1964 provides also a remission for natural vicissitudes ('Kedupizha'). Such vicissitudes cannot in the nature of things be regular; and if they were regular with the concerned land, rent (pattam) would have been fixed low and not a provision made for remission out of the rent. Disallowance thereof in the calculation of michavaram by the Courts below appears right.' There is no evidence of any such vicissitude in recent years on the land in question, either.
5. In the result, we affirm the dicta in the aforesaid decisions and find no error in the calculation of Jenmikarams made by the Courts below in these cases. The appeals fail and are hereby dismissed, with costs.