Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 2 of 1951 of the court of the District Munsiff, Tirur, -appellant in AS. No. 18 of 1956 of the District Court, Kozhikode - is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The only question for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover rent at the market-price of the commodities specified in Ext. Al, the contract of tenancy, or only at the rates indicated in that document itself. The relevant portion of Ext. Al reads as follows: 2. There can be no doubt that the question has to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960. S.95 (2) (a) of that Act says: "The Proclamation XVI of 1122 [Cochin], dated the 14th February 1947, the Proclamation VI of 1124 [Cochin], dated 12th January 1949, the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act 1957 and the Madras Tenants and Ryots Protection Act, 1949, are hereby repealed and all suits, appeals, revisions, reviews and proceedings in execution of decrees stayed by the said enactments may be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Act". This Second Appeal was one stayed by the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1957. It is true that there was no order of the High Court directing a stay; but that is not material. What is contemplated by S.95 (2) (a) is not a stay directed by a court but the statutory stay effected by the enactments mentioned in that provision. 3. It follows that the question before us has to be tackled, as already stated according to the provisions of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960. S.19 (2) of that Act provides: "The money value of the rent payable in kind, unless it is specified in the document evidencing the contract of tenancy shall be computed with reference to the rates published in the Gazette under S.26 for the date on which the rent is payable and if no such rate is published for that date, at the rate for the nearest previous date for which a rate is so published: Provided that where in respect of any commodity the price has not been published in the Gazette, the money of such commodity shall be calculated at the market rate prevailing on the date on which the rent is due". 4. The provision in Ext. 4. The provision in Ext. Al which we have extracted above shows that the money value of the rent payable in kind is specified in the document which evidences the contract of tenancy and such being the case there can be no question of computing the money value of the rent payable in kind on any other basis. It is only in cases where the money value of the rent payable in kind is not specified in the document evidencing the contract of tenancy that a computation on the basis of the market-price is directed by the statute. 5. The lower courts have decided that the one year's rent claimed by the plaintiff should be calculated according to the money value indicated in Ext. Al and that ruling calls for no interference. The Second Appeal has hence to be dismissed and we do so. In the circumstances of the case however, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs here and in the courts below. Dismissed.