Judgment :- 1. This second appeal is in a suit for rent due under the kanom kychit, evidenced by Ext. A-1 dated September 28,1950. 2. Ext. B-1 dated January 18,1942, is the original kanom between the parties under which the kanom amount was Rs. 50/- and the annual rent Rs. 30/-. No definite term was stipulated in that deed. On August 11, 1944, it was renewed for a term of 6 years by Ext. B-2 raising the kanom amount to Rs. 100/-and the annual rent to Rs. 66/-. Ext. A-1 is a kychit, in renewal of Ext. B-2, executed by the defendant agreeing to pay an enhanced rent of Rs. 110/- per annum. It is conceded that the rent upto 1131 M.E. had been paid according to Ext. A-1 This suit is for the rent for 1133 M.E. (1957-58). The defendant contended that Exts. B-2 & A-1 are invalid and that therefore he is bound to pay only the rent stipulated under Ext. B-1. The courts below accepted his plea and decreed rent as per Ext. B-1. The plaintiff has come up in second appeal. 3. S.17, the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, originally, provided: "A kanamdar shall, on the expiry of the kanam under which he holds, be entitled to claim and his immediate landlord shall be bound to grant a renewal, enuring for a period of twelve years, of the same on payment, as renewal fee" a sum calculated as per the rest of the section. In K.P. Soopi v. R. Kanaran (AIR. 1958 Mad. 71) Govinda Menon, J. observed that "without a specific consideration or justification there can be no increase of rent or purappad in the case of renewals under S.17 of the Malabar Tenancy Act." In finding Exts. B-2 & A-1 void ab initio and unenforceable the Courts below relied largely on the above observation. I am afraid neither Ext. B-2 nor Ext. A-1 can be characterised as a renewal under S.17 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. According to counsel for the respondent, Ext. B-1, not having been stipulated to be for any term, must be taken as a kanom for 12 years, expiring by 1954. Exts. B-2 and A-1 were them long before the expiry of the prior kanom; there was no payment of renewal fee for either; & both were for a term of 6 years only. B-1, not having been stipulated to be for any term, must be taken as a kanom for 12 years, expiring by 1954. Exts. B-2 and A-1 were them long before the expiry of the prior kanom; there was no payment of renewal fee for either; & both were for a term of 6 years only. Thus none of the incidents of a renewal under S.17 is present in Ext. B-2 or Ext. A-1. Obviously therefore, Exts. B-2 & A-1 are not renewals under S.17 and the observations in K.P. Sooppi v. R. Kanaran do not straightaway apply to them. 4. Counsel for the respondent contended that the agreement to pay enhanced rent embodied in Exts. B-2 and A-1 had no consideration and is not therefore enforceable. I am afraid that the law of consideration is misunderstood in this argument. In a lease the consideration is for the enjoyment of the land under the lease and not for the execution of the lease; in other words, 'rent' is the consideration for a lease - vide the definition of a lease in S.105 of the Transfer of Property Act. A kanom partakes the nature of a mortgage and of a lease. Under it an advance is given which is charged on the property. So far as the mortgage aspect is concerned such advance - usually called the kanom amount - forms the consideration. And, so far as the lease aspect is concerned the rent - often called michavaram or purappad - is the consideration. When agrarian reforms began to concede fixity of tenure for leases, the lease aspect of a kanom came to be regarded as the more important one so that the kanomholders also may have a right to enjoy their holdings permanently. The question here is of the rent of the property. What was enhanced under Ext. A-1 is the rent only. In the context, the kanom has to be viewed as a lease and then its consideration is the rent. It cannot then be said that Exts. B-2 and A-1 lacked consideration. Further, no special consideration is needed for surrender of a lease. The release from obligation to pay further rents is sufficient consideration for the surrender of a subsisting lease. Mulla in his commentary on the Transfer of Property Act (4th edn. It cannot then be said that Exts. B-2 and A-1 lacked consideration. Further, no special consideration is needed for surrender of a lease. The release from obligation to pay further rents is sufficient consideration for the surrender of a subsisting lease. Mulla in his commentary on the Transfer of Property Act (4th edn. p. 681) observes: "Implied surrender or surrender by operation of law occurs by the creation of a new relationship.... If the lessee accepts a new lease that in itself is a surrender of the old lease, for the new lease could not be granted unless the old was surrendered." A renewal of kanom on new terms implies necessarily a termination, by implied surrender, of the old kanom and the creation of a new kanom between the parties. Neither needs consideration when kanom is reckoned as a lease. I am therefore constrained to dissent from the observations cited above from K.P. Sooppi v. R. Kanaran. 5. There is no case here that either Ext. B-2 or Ext. A-1 is vitiated by fraud, coercion or other invalidating fact. The only defect alleged and found in regard to them is contravention of S.17 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929. That Section did not restrict freedom of contract between landlord and tenant in taking renewals of kanom. All that it provided was for a compulsory renewal in case either party was unwilling to renew the kanom. If parties met and agreed as to the terms of a kanom between them, neither public policy nor any provision of the Malabar Tenancy Act might be said to be violated. In Kuttimalu Thambathi v. P.S. Krishna Iyer (1961 KLT. 692) Velu Pillai, J. has observed: "My attention was not drawn to any specific provision in the Act, which expressly takes away the right of a kanamdar to accept a renewal, which is not in accordance with the terms of S.17.... On the contrary, there is an indication in S.27 of the Act, that it is open to a tenant to secure a renewal on such terms as may be agreed to between him and the landlord, even after the date of the Act.... I therefore come to the conclusion, that S.17 creates no bar to a kanomdar, in entering into a contract according to his choice." Counsel for appellant cited Puthukulangara Ukkali v. Sivarama Krishna Pattar (AIR. I therefore come to the conclusion, that S.17 creates no bar to a kanomdar, in entering into a contract according to his choice." Counsel for appellant cited Puthukulangara Ukkali v. Sivarama Krishna Pattar (AIR. 1941 Madras 408) which dealt with renewal fees. There is one sentence in that decision which is relevant here. It reads: "It seems to us that the view taken by both the lower courts that under the kanom deed which the plaintiff sought to enforce he will not be entitled to claim the michavaram stipulated in the deed but only 10 paras and 1 edangali of paddy and as.1-3 is in accordance with the terms of the previous kanom." That observation is not based on a discussion of the validity of the contract entered into by the parties, and no ground is given in that decision for holding the agreement unenforceable. The decision of this Court in 1961 KLT. 692 is a reasoned judgment that has taken a contrary view. 6. Certainly, under S.17 it was not open to the landlord to raise the rent at his will and pleasure; and the tenant could have insisted on a renewal as provided in the Section. But, there was nothing therein to prohibit the parties from entering into a transaction in renewal of a kanom on terms mutually agreed upon. In Exts. B-2 and A-1 one party appears to have given up renewal fee and the other party agreed to pay an enhanced rent. I find no illegality in that. 7. In the result, the decree of the courts below has to be modified, as was done in 1961 KLT. 692, entitling the plaintiff to the rent stipulated in Ext. A-1. The second appeal is therefore allowed, and the suit is decreed with costs throughout. The provisions of Act I of 1964 in regard to discharge of arrears of rent will not be affected by anything said in this judgment. Allowed.