Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a jenmi whose lands have been demised on kanom and verumpattam. The question involved in this petition is whether he is liable for the tax due to the Government in respect of the areas comprised in such holdings. 2. The Travancore-Cochin Land Tax Act, 1955, is the enactment under which land tax is now collected. It came into force on 1.4.1956. S.4 and 5 of the Act read as follows: "4. Subject to the provisions of this Act, there shall be charged and levied in respect of all lands in the State, of whatever description and held under whatever tenure, a uniform rate of tax to be called the basic tax. 5(1) The basic tax charged and levied under the foregoing section shall be at the rate of three pies per cent of land per annum. (2) The basic tax charged and levied at this rate shall be the tax payable to the Government in lieu of any existing tax in respect of the land". 3. Under the Kanom Tenancy Act, 1955, which came into force on 1.3.1956, Jenmi" means "a person immediately under whom a kanam tenant holds" and Jenmikaram" in respect of a holding or any land comprised in a holding means the amount payable in respect of that holding or land under the provisions of the Act by the kanam tenant to the jenmi every year "in lieu of all claims of the jenmi in respect of the holding, or land and shall be the sum total of the michavaram and the fractional fee". S.3(1) of the Act provides that: "From and after the commencement of this Act, the jenmi shall not have any right, claim or interest in any land in a holding, except the right to receive the jenmikaram thereon and the kanom-tenant shall be deemed to be the owner of the land subject only to the payment of the jenmikaram. and sub-ss. and sub-ss. (1) and (5) of S.16: "(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every jenmi shall be entitled to receive and every kanom¬tenant shall be bound to pay in respect of all land in the latter's holding the jenmikaram due thereon, and notwithstanding any contract or usage to the contrary the jenmi shall not be entitled to receive from the kanom-tenant and the kanom-tenant shall not be bound to pay to the jenmi anything else in respect of the land. (5) Notwithstanding any usage or contract to the contrary the kanom-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". 4. These provisions of the Kanom Tenancy Act, 1955, make it clear that it is the jenmi and not the kanom¬tenant who is liable to pay the tax under the Travancore-Cochin Land Tax Act, 1955. 5. S.6 of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951, says: "When public revenue due on land may be in arrear, such arrear, together with interest, if any, and costs of process, may be recovered by the sale of the defaulter's movable or immovable property or all or any of these processes in the manner hereinafter provided" and the term "defaulter" is defined in S.2(d) of the Act as follows: "'Defaulter' means a person from whom an arrear of public revenue is due, and includes a person who is responsible as surety for the payment of any such arrear of revenue". S. 4 of the Act is in the following terms: "Subject to such rules as the Government may prescribe from time to time, every land-holder shall pay to the Collector or the Deputy Collector or the Tahsildar, the Proverthicar or the Village Accountant or any other officer whom the Government may authorise in that behalf by notification in the Gazette, the revenue due from him on or before the day fixed for payment, and the payer shall be entitled to a receipt signed by the officer concerned for the payment so made. In cases where the payment is made by a person on behalf of the land-holder such receipt shall also contain the name of the person who makes the payment" and the term "land-holder" is defined meaning: "the registered holder for the time being of any land, and includes his legal representatives and assigns and includes any person who under the law for the time being in force is liable for the payment of public revenue due in respect of land held by him". 6. In view of the provisions of the Kanom Tenancy Act, 1955, and especially of sub-s. (5) of S.16 of that enactment I must hold that in respect of kanom tenancies coming with in the purview of that Act it is the kanom-tenant and not the jenmi "who under the law for the time being in force is liable for the payment of public revenue" and that it is he who should be considered as the "land-holder" for the purposes of S.4 of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951. It follows that the jenmi of a kanom tenancy coming within the purview of the Kanom Tenancy Act, 1955, cannot be treated as a defaulter and dealt with under the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951, and that steps under that Act for the recovery of arrears should be directed not against him but against his kanom-tenant. 7. The case of the verumpattom tenants stands on a different footing. S.6 of the Cochin Verumpattomdars' Act, VIII of 1118, provides: "As between a verumpattomdar and his lessor, the latter shall, in the absence of any custom or contract to the contrary, be liable for the revenue, cess or tax payable to Government or to any local authority; but the former shall be liable for - (a) any enhancement subsequent to the commencement of this Act in the revenue, cess, or tax payable to Government or to any local authority; (b) any special charges leviable by Government for special or additional crops raised on nilams; (c) any special charges payable to Government in connection with survey or settlement operations or for the maintenance of survey marks". This does not mean that as between the lessor of a verumpattom holding and the State it is not he but his tenant who is liable to pay the whole or any portion of the tax. This does not mean that as between the lessor of a verumpattom holding and the State it is not he but his tenant who is liable to pay the whole or any portion of the tax. The entire liability to pay the State continues to be his though he has a right of suit against his tenant for the amounts coming under (a), (b) and (c) and for eviction under S.8 of the Cochin Verumpattomdar's Act, VIII of 1118, on the ground that his tenant had not paid "the revenue, cess, or special charges, if any, specified in S.6". That such is the position will also be clear from S.1 of Proclamation VI of 1124: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Cochin Verumpattomdar's Act, VIII of 1118, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or in any other law for the time being in force, no suit for eviction of a verumpattomdar to whom the provisions of the Act apply, shall be maintainable in OUR courts on the ground that he has not paid the pattom due in respect of the holding or the revenue, cess, tax or special charges, if any, specified in S.6 of the Act, and all suits, appeals, revisions, reviews and proceedings in execution of a decree shall be stayed by OUR courts in so far only as they relate to the relief for eviction of such verumpattomdar on the ground mentioned in Cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of S.8 of the Act" and its proviso: "Provided that this prohibition shall not preclude a lessor from instituting a suit for the recovery of arrears of pattom or the revenue, cess, tax or special charges, if any, for which the verumpattomdar shall be liable". 8. In view of these provisions the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far as the verumpattom holdings are concerned his client shall move the Government, pointing out the hardship involved and seeking legislative redress. 9. I do not think I need do anything more in this petition than declare the law as I have done in Para.6 above. There is no reason to apprehend that the Government will not comply with the law once it is declared and if they do not, the petitioner will of course be free to move this court afresh under Art.226 of the Constitution. 10. There is no reason to apprehend that the Government will not comply with the law once it is declared and if they do not, the petitioner will of course be free to move this court afresh under Art.226 of the Constitution. 10. The petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated above. No costs.