Govinda Menon, J.-As the question of law involved in these Second Appeals was considered an important one by Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., they have come up for decision, before a Bench. Second Appeal No. 1794 of 1952.-The plaintiff who is the appellant filed a suit for arrears of rent from 1945 to 1950 on foot of a registered kanom marupat, Exhibit A-1, dated 6th October, 1945, under which defendants were to pay an annual rent of Rs. 8 along with certain sundries. The defence to the suit was that under an earlier document, Exhibit B-1, dated 7th January, 1918, which had been renewed by Exhibit A-1, the rent payable was only Rs. 4-12-0, and the increase of rent by the renewed demise was opposed to the provisions of the Malabar Tenancy Act and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the difference. The Lower Appellate Court found following the decision in Ukkali v. Sivarama Krishna Pattar1, that in the case of a kanom demise, there can be no enhancement of the purapad payable at the time of renewal and therefore the increase under Exhibit A-1 was not justified. The question is whether the agreement to pay a higher rent by a kanomdar or kuzhikanomdar at the time of renewal is valid and enforceable. Mr. Kutti Krishna Menon for the appellant relies upon certain provisions of the Malabar Tenancy Act, Madras Act (XIV of 1930) where certain statutory provisions are enacted “ in the absence of a contract to the contrary” , whereas in section 17(a) of the Act which relates to renewals there is no such distinguishing feature. Under these circumstances it is contended that it is open to the landlord despite the provisions of section 17(a) to enter into an agreement with the kanomdar with regard to fixing of michavaram, renewal fee and the like. Under these circumstances it is contended that it is open to the landlord despite the provisions of section 17(a) to enter into an agreement with the kanomdar with regard to fixing of michavaram, renewal fee and the like. What is contemplated by section 17(a) is that a kanomdar shall on the expiry of the kanom under which he holds, be entitled to claim and his immediate landlord shall be bound to grant a renewal enuring for a period of 12 years of the same on payment as renewal fee, of two and one-fourth times the balance of the annual fair rent of the lands covered by the kanom after deducting the annual revenue payable on the kanom property to the Government if payable by the kanomdar under the kanom deed (2) the annual interest on the kanartham and (3) the annual michavaram payable under the previous kanom. It is clear from this provision that on the expiry of the kanom there is a statutory right conferred on the kanomdar which he could enforce by means of an application to the Court by sections 22 onwards to obtain a renewal after he pays to his immediate landlord the amount of renewal fee as calculated under this provision. In 30 computing the renewal fee, the annual michavaram payable under the provisions of the kanom deed alone has to be taken and the terms should be the same as in the previous kanom which is sought to be renewed. As the section does not begin by enumerating that the provisions are in the absence of a contract to the contrary, comparing certain other sections which state specificially “ contract to the contrary” , the learned counsel contends that whatever might be the statutory provision under section 17 it is open to a kanomdar and his landlord to contract out of it, if such a contract is not vitiated by any of the infirmities contemplated by the Indian Contract Act such as fraud, undue influence or the like. Our attention is invited to section 10 which speaks of the cultivating verumpattamdar’s right to fixity: “Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary entered into whether before or after the coming into force of the Act every cultivating verumpattamdar shall have fixity of tenure in respect of his holding......” Similarly section 22 begins by saying “Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary (whether made before or after the commencement of this Act) a customary verumpattamdar, kanomdar or kuzhikanamdar shall entitled to apply to the Court in the form prescribed for the execution of a renewal deed......” Section 32 also says “Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary express or implied whether entered into before or after the coming into force of this Act no cultivating verumpattamdar shall be liable to pay to his landlord anything more or anything else than the fair rent and no tenant who is entitled to claim a renewal under this Act shall for the purpose of obtaining the renewal be liable to pay as renewal fee anything more or anything else than the renewal fee provided by this Act” . The fact that the Legislature had thought fit to make it impossible for the tenant to contract out of the Act in three instances referred to above is relied on by the learned counsel to show that it is possible for the landlord while renewing a kanom to impose his own terms apart from what the section provides if the kanomdar, tenant, is willing and agreeable to act upon such terms. In Ukkali v. Sivaramakrishna Pattar1, this Court has held that the word “ same” in section 17 of the Malabar Tenancy Act connotes renewal of the kanom on the same terms as the previous kanom. If the landlord declines to grant a renewal on payment of the proper renewal fee, the tenant can seek the aid of the Court and the Court should grant the renewal of the kanam only on the same terms as the previous kanom. The principle underlying this decision is that if the landlord is unwilling or refuses to grant renewal on the identical terms as the existing kanom there is a right for the kanomdar to resort to a Court of Law and get a compulsory renewal on the same terms if he pays the renewal fee as contemplated in section 17, clause (a) of the Act. That being the case, it is not open to the landlord to stipulate a higher rate of michavaram as opposed to the provisions of the Act. In our opinion, the principle of law enunciated, cannot be questioned but there is nothing in section 17(a) which prevents a landlord from increasing the rent at the time of renewal if there is specific consideration for such a renewal. Otherwise such an increase would be a contract entered into without consideration because any increase of rent is against the provisions of the statute. In the present case the original purapad of Rs. 4-12-0 fixed in 1918 was inclusive of Government revenue. The landlord had the obligation to pay Government revenue and if the kanomdar paid Rs. 4-12-0 there is no obligation cast on him to pay the annual Government revenue but under the renewal, Exhibit A-1 the rent of Rs. 8 included in itself not only the Government revenue as it stood in 1918 but also the revenue enhanced after the settlement in the early thirties. Such being the case, there is a valid consideration for the increase of purapad and it cannot be said that such an increase for reasons beyond the control of the landlord is opposed to the provisions of the Act. If the purapad is not increased the original purapad might be less than the increased revenue at the time of the settlement. In the present case Exhibit A-1 clearly lays down that the amount of Rs. 8 was arrived at because there was an increase in the Government revenue as a result of the settlement in respect of the lands covered by the kanam. It has been laid down in a number of cases that where there is an usufructuary mortgage or kanam and the Government enhances the revenue payable during the pendency of such relationship then it is the mortgagee and not the mortgagor who is liable to pay the enhanced Government revenue. Vide Kunchu Menon v. Narayanan Ezutessan1, Nanu Nair v. Moorthi Nambudripad2, Natruwath Pappu v. Kolli Vaiappil Kalathile Vittil3. Apart from the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, in Malabar where in many cases the increase of Government revenue at the time of periodical settlements has been due to improvements effected on the property by the tenant, the burden of such increase should be on the tenant. Apart from the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, in Malabar where in many cases the increase of Government revenue at the time of periodical settlements has been due to improvements effected on the property by the tenant, the burden of such increase should be on the tenant. Usually in regard to lands on which fruit bearing trees such as cocoanut trees, arecanut trees and jack trees are planted the assessment per acre is computed with reference to the yield of the trees and if the trees are planted by the tenant as a result of which the Government revenue on the land gets enhanced the obligation to pay such enhanced revenue is on the tenant and not on the landlord. In cases where the landlord has demised an extent of land which could be converted into a garden by planting fruit bearing and other kinds of trees and on which at the time of the demise there were no trees, if the kanamdar or the tenant plants such trees as a result of which the land gets improved and consequently the tax is also enhanced, it stands to reason that the tax must be paid not by the landlord but by the person responsible for the increase in taxation. In the present case it can fairly be presumed that the increase in Government revenue was due to the planting of trees by the defendants. Mr. Achuthan Nambiar for the respondents contends that there is no evidence as to what -exactly is the increase in Government revenue and as such a finding should be called for to ascertain that. We do not think that any such necessity arises because the original rent of Rs. 4-12-0 included Government Revenue then payable, and the enhanced rent of Rs. 8 also included enhanced Government revenue payable at the time of Exhibit A-1. Such being the case, it is easy to conclude that the difference of Rs. 3-4-0 was due to enhanced Government revenue. It follows therefore that the plaintiff is entitled to get the purapad in accordance with the terms contained in Exhibit A-1. But it is not open to the landlord to raise the michavaram at his will and pleasure. There must be some circumstance justifying the enhancement and the contract must be fully supported by consideration. It follows therefore that the plaintiff is entitled to get the purapad in accordance with the terms contained in Exhibit A-1. But it is not open to the landlord to raise the michavaram at his will and pleasure. There must be some circumstance justifying the enhancement and the contract must be fully supported by consideration. To take an analogous instance, as in the case of rate of interest provided for under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, if a debtor agrees to pay a higher rate of interest than what as provided for by the Act it has been held in Mallikarjuna Rao v. Tripurasundari4, which has been followed in Dhanakotti Pillai v. Narayana Iyer5, and also in Civil Revision Petition No. 232 of 1954 that a stipulation to pay a higher rate of interest is not supported by consideration and as such cannot be enforced. Following that principle it seems to us that without a specific consideration or justification there can be no increase of rent or purapad in the case of renewals under section 17 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. The decisions of the lower Courts are, therefore, modified and the plaintiff will get a decree for higher rent on foot of the claim made in his plaint as stipulated in Exhibit A-1. The appellant will be entitled to his costs in this Second Appeal and the costs in both the lower Courts; Second Appeal No. 1448 of 1952.-Here also the question is as regards the payment of increased purapad. Unlike the previous Second Appeal, there was no renewal as such, which has now become the subject of consideration. The original kanam Exhibit A-1 dated 22nd November, 1933, was, under Exhibit B-2, dated 22nd October, 1945, ostensibly surrendered;but four days thereafter under Exhibit A-4 there was a kanam, kuzhikanam deed executed by the same tenant to the same landlord. The lower Appellate Court has found that the surrender under Exhibit B-2 was only a nominal transaction got executed by the plaintiffs for the purpose of getting over the provisions of section 17(a) of the Malabar Tenancy Act. The learned Subordinate Judge has given ample reasons for holding that the surrender was never intended to be acted upon. He has also found that there was in fact no surrender of possession but only a make believe. Mr. The learned Subordinate Judge has given ample reasons for holding that the surrender was never intended to be acted upon. He has also found that there was in fact no surrender of possession but only a make believe. Mr. C. S. Swaminathan, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that this finding cannot be accepted. He urges that it is open to a landlord to obtain a surrender of the holding from the tenant if he is willing to do so under section 44 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, which is “a kanamdar or kuzhikanamdar or customary verumpattamdar.....may at the end of any agricultural year surrender his holding to his immediate landlord, by a registered document”. That being the case, the privilege of surrendering the holding at the expiry of the demise is one granted by the Act and when between the parties there is an agreement that the previous relationship is to be put an end to by a registered document, there is nothing, according to the learned counsel, to prevent the erstwhile landlord and the quandom kanamdar to enter into a fresh kanam or kuzhikanam on new stipulations and terms. It is urged by the learned counsel that in the present case what has been done is the giving up of rights conferred under Exhibit A-1 by Exhibit B-2 and the creation of fresh relationship by Exhibit A-4. Analogous cases have arisen where a karnavan on behalf of his tarwad has renewed a kanam or granted melcharth of the same before the expiry of the original demise. Questions have arisen whether such a transaction is binding on his successor. In a number of cases it has been held that a surrender and re-grant are within the competence of the karnavan: See Kunhukuttan v. Imbichikuttan1, Lakshmi Amma v. Kunhi Raman2, Koppassa Menon v. Kalliani Ammal3;S. A. No. 3 of 19314 and C. M. A. No. 406 of 19205. It is therefore clear that if the transaction had been above board and in the usual course of circumstances there can be no objection to that. The Full Bench in Trivikrama Konuraya v. Sankaranarayana6, has held that even a melcharth granted before the expiry of the term by a karnavan if assented to by the same karnavan when the original term had expired would be valid. The Full Bench in Trivikrama Konuraya v. Sankaranarayana6, has held that even a melcharth granted before the expiry of the term by a karnavan if assented to by the same karnavan when the original term had expired would be valid. Applying that principle if the kanamdar surrenders his rights under an existing kanam and then takes a fresh document there is nothing to be said against such a transaction. But the difficulty in this case arises from the fact that the lower Courts have found that Exhibit A-4 was a device to get over section 17(a) of the Malabar Tenancy Act by which it is not possible to enhance the michavaram. As we have stated, in the judgment in S.A. No. 1794 of 1952 if there had been any additional consideration for enhancing the michavaram, then the renewal cannot be discountenanced on that score. On the finding of the lower Courts that there is no such consideration, the decisions have to be affirmed and this Second Appeal dismissed with costs. P.R.N. ----- S. A. No. 1794 decree modified.S. A. No. 1448 dismissed.