Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.
1. The point to be decided in this second appeal is one which arises under the Malabar Tenancy Act. The appellants who are two sisters applied for the renewal of a kanam claiming to be kanamdars within the meaning of the Malabar Tenancy Act. The facts are that the elder brother of the appellants got a renewal of the kanam in 1917 in his name. The first respondent filed a suit against him and evicted him and the Malabar Tenancy Act does not apply to his case as the suit against him was filed on the 17th July, 1929.. The. appellants then claimed to be kanamdars, their case being that they were jointly entitled with their brother to the kanam amount. The District Munsif took no evidence upon this point being of the opinion that upon an interpretation of the Act the appellants were not kanamdars; and the lower Appellate Court took the same view. The appellants' contention is that evidence should have been taken which would show that they were jointly entitled with their brother to the kanam amount as heirs of their father and are therefore entitled to a renewal of the kanam as persons jointly interested in it and that their brother was merely a kanamdar for himself and on their behalf. The question is whether the Malabar Tenancy Act, recognises such a position. The point to be considered is what does 'kanamdar' mean under the Act? By Section 3(e) 'kanam' means a transfer by a landlord to a tenant, i.e., kanamdar of an interest in specific immoveable property. 'Tenant' is defined in (V) as meaning any person who has paid or agreed to pay rent or other consideration for his being allowed by another (the landlord) to enjoy the land of the latter (the landlord) and includes a kanamdar. 'Landlord' is defined in (O) as meaning a person under whom a tenant holds and to whom he is liable to pay rent or misehavaram and includes a jenmi. Now if the 'kanam' which is a transfer is evidenced by a written instrument, the kanamdar who is the transferee by reason of the definition in Section 3(e) can, it seems to us, be no other person than the transferee mentioned in the document or his legal representative or his assignee. It is he too who alone can be said to have agreed to pay rent or other consideration to be allowed by the landlord to enjoy his land. The two contracting parties are the landlord on the one hand and the kanamdar on the other. It seems plain that the only; person whom the landlord can sue is the other contracting party, the kanamdar. He cannot sue any other person for rent and in our view cannot recognise any person other than the person to whom the kanam has been transferred. Further assistance is obtained from Section 17(a) which entitles a kanamdar on the expiry of the kanam under which he holds, on payment of the renewal fee therein specified, to claim a renewal of the kanam for a period of twelve years and the: landlord is bound to grant a renewal. What would happen if, for example, at the expiry of the kanam, A to whom it had been granted claims a renewal of it on payment of the renewal fee and at the same time B a stranger, claims a renewal to himself stating that A has been in possession of the kanam on his behalf. It is quite dear from Section 17(a) that the landlord would be bound to renew the kanam to A and could not grant a renewal to B. The only person whom he would be entitled to recognise would be A. The right claimed by B would be a matter to be settled between A and B - a matter with which the landlord is not concerned. The scope of the Act, in our view, is to provide for proceedings between the two contracting parties alone and an analysis of all the relevant sections leaves us in no doubt that the Courts below were right in holding that in this case only the appellants' brother (and not the appellants themselves) was the kanamdar who alone, had the date of the institution of the suit permitted it, could have applied for a renewal. This appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs of first respondent.