Judgment :- 1. Revision sought for here is of an order passed by the Land, Tribunal, Ottappalam, 6, on the tenants' application for assignment of the right, title and interest of the land owner the revision petitioner, in respect of a holding, fixing under S-72 F(5) of the: Land Reforms Act,1 of 1964, Rs. 7,82.40 as the purchase price. In the Application the tenants, respondents 1 to 10 here prayed for the purchase price being fixed as 16 times the fair rent and the fair rent itself being determined as 50% of the contract rent. The Land Tribunal accepted the mode of calculation of the fair rent as 50 % of the contract rent. It was after multiplying the fair rent so arrived at by 16 and fixing the price of paddy as Rs. 3.68 per para that it arrived at the amount, Rs. 782.40. It took michavarom as the contract rent. The land owner's appeal from the order of the Land Tribunal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Trichur. It is thereafter that the land owner has approached this court in revision. 2. The only grievance of the land owner here is that the contract rent should have been found to be 200 paras of paddy and fair rent and purchase price determined on that basis. 3. Copy of the document evidencing renewal of the kanom transaction between the parties has been produced here and both sides argued on the basis of the provisions contained in it. That document shows that kanarthom advanced is Rs. 100/- and michavarom calculated is 25 odd paras of paddy. Michavarom is seen calculated after fixing the total annual rent for the holding as 200 paras of paddy and deducting from it the annual land revenue and land cess for the holding which the tenant had to pay on behalf of the land owner and the interest on the kanarthom which the tenant was entitled to get from the land owner. It is not disputed that calculating the price of paddy at Rs. 3.68 per para if the contract real is taken as 25 odd paras of paddy the purchase price fixed by the land tribunal is correct and that if on the other hand the contract rent is 200 paras of paddy the purchase price after set off of the kanarthom of Rs. 100/ -would be Rs. 5788/-. 3.68 per para if the contract real is taken as 25 odd paras of paddy the purchase price fixed by the land tribunal is correct and that if on the other hand the contract rent is 200 paras of paddy the purchase price after set off of the kanarthom of Rs. 100/ -would be Rs. 5788/-. The real dispute therefore is what is the contract rent, whether it is the michavarom of 25 odd paras of paddy or the total rent of 200 paras of paddy mentioned in the document. 4. In several places Act I of 1964 uses the words 'mischavarom', 'rent', 'fair rent' and 'contract rent' as having distinct significance. The Act separately defines 'michavarom' and 'rent'. There is also provision in the Act as to how 'fair rent' should be calculated. But there is no provision in the Act either defining 'contract rent' or saying how it should be calculated. In the absence of that, 'contract rent' has to be taken as rent agreed to by the parties. 5. No doubt in the definition of the word 'rent' in S.2 (49) after saying what it means it is also stated that it includes 'michavarom' but does not include 'customary dues'. But that only shows that while customary dues are intended to be excluded michavarom is not intended to be so excluded in calculating rent. That does not mean that'michavarom' is synonymous with 'rent'. 6. That the two expressions, 'michavarom' and 'rent', are not synonymous can be seen from the very definitions of those expressions also. While 'rent' is defined to mean "whatever is lawfully payable" 'michavarom' is defined to include "the balance of money or produce payable periodically under the document after deducting from the money or produce due to the transferor, the interest due on the amount advanced to the transferor ". That shows that but for the interest on the amount advanced to the transferor what is due to the transferor is something more than michavarom. The decision of a Division Bench of this court in Kelappan Nair v Payingaten 1961 KLT 527, a case arising under the Malabar Tenancy Act, is also to the same effect. 7. That shows that but for the interest on the amount advanced to the transferor what is due to the transferor is something more than michavarom. The decision of a Division Bench of this court in Kelappan Nair v Payingaten 1961 KLT 527, a case arising under the Malabar Tenancy Act, is also to the same effect. 7. In Subhadra Thampatty v. Muhamad Alias Kunjan Haji and Others 1972 KLT 459, decision of a learned single judge, it was held that for determining fair rent on the basis of contract rent, the contract rent had to be taken as the rent stipulated in the deed of demise without deducting from it interest on 'munpattom'. The correctness of that decision was canvassed here relying upon the decisions in Ittiravi Namboodiri v. Krishnankutty Menon, AIR. 1964 Ker. 298 =1964 KLT 335 and C. R. P. Nos. 475 of 1973 and 1043 of 1974. 8. Ittiravi Namboodiri v. Krishnankutty Menon AIR. 1964 Ker. 298:1964 KLT 335 is the decision of a Full Bench. The majority decision there was that by a unilateral act on the part of the tenant he was not entitled to recover the "munpattom" he paid to the landlord and by a similar act on the part of the landlord he was not entitled to pay off the 'munpattom'. But as made specific in that decision itself that principle applied only during the currency of the tenancy, that is, before its termination. That was a case arising under the Cochin Verumpattomdars Act. That Act was repealed by Act 1 of 1964 and in the latter Act there is specific provision in S.72 F(7) for setting off amounts covered by encumbrances against compensation payable to the land owner. When the subsequent statute has intervened and made provision for discharge of liabilities under encumbrances like 'munpattom' and 'kanarthom' there is no scope for application of the principle laid down in the Full Bench that the landlord is not entitled to pay off the'munpattom' and the tenant is not entitled to claim 'munpattom'. 9. As encumbrances become extinguished by set off against the compensation payable to the land owner the amounts covered by the encumbrances are not available for calculation of interest on them and so it is not right to take into account that interest in calculating the contract rent. 10. In the decision of a Division Bench in C.R.P. Nos. 9. As encumbrances become extinguished by set off against the compensation payable to the land owner the amounts covered by the encumbrances are not available for calculation of interest on them and so it is not right to take into account that interest in calculating the contract rent. 10. In the decision of a Division Bench in C.R.P. Nos. 475 of 1973 and 1043 of 1974 it is stated as follows: "We should here remember that the Act does not provide for return of any amount advanced by the intermediary, be it by way of premium or as mortgage amount The only provision in the Act is to compensate the intermediary and the land owner for depriving them of their respective right, title and interest in the holding " After quoting a passage from the Full Bench decision in Ittiravi Namboodiri v. Krishnankutty Menon AIR. 1964 Ker. 298 their Lordships further said: "Applying the principle contained in the above passage it goes without saying that the land owner cannot redeem the holding by paying off the intermediary nor can an intermediary demand payment of the amount advanced by him to the landowner. It is in this background that we will have to construe the terms 'profit derived', 'rent to which the landowner is entitled' and 'rent which the intermediary is liable to his landlord' occurring in S.72 G(2) and the Explanation thereto. But for the provision, S.72 of the Act, the intermediary who has been converted into a statutory tenant as aforesaid (and is therefore, in the language of the Full Bench decision noticed above: 'anamalous entity' or a 'jurisprudential curiosity') would be entitled to the benefits of all the terms and conditions which the parties agreed to originally when the tenancy was created. And, were we asked as to what 'profits' were 'derived by them from the holding' we would have no hesitation to answer that the landlord (or the landowner as the case may be) was getting as profits, not the sum total of consideration stipulated or agreed upon as rent but only the residual rent he was receiving after appropriation by the tenant as per the terms and conditions of the contract of tenancy, and that the intermediary was collecting as profits what he was actually receiving from his tenant as per the terms' and conditions agreed upon between the intermediary and his tenant. Would it make any difference, and would the answer be in any manner different that the question is posed after the right, title and interest of both the landowner and the intermediary have been blotted out by legislation, and their respective right, title and interest in the holding have come to be represented by the compensation amount calculated in accordance with the provisions contained in S.72A of the Act. We do not think so". These observations have to be read in the context in which they were made. The question which arose for consideration in CRPs 475 of 1973 and 1043 of 1974 was as to how the purchase price which was already in deposit before the land tribunal had to be apportioned as among the landowners, intermediaries and tenants in those cases. In both the cases there was a sub-lease by the original tenant and consequently the original tenant became an intermediary. In one case 100 paras of paddy was fixed as the rent and one para of paddy as the michavarom in the mortgage transaction between the land owner and the intermediary which amounted to a tenancy. In the sub-lease by the intermediary to the cultivating tenant 100 paras of paddy was fixed as rent payable to the intermediary. Therefore in fixing the fair rent and the purchase price 100 paras of paddy fixed in the sub-lease transaction had to be taken as the contract rent. In the other case in the lease transaction between the land owner and the intermediary 75 paras of paddy was fixed as annual rent and three paras of paddy as purapad. In the sub-lease by the intermediary to the cultivating tenant 96 paras of paddy was fixed as the rent. As the rent fixed in the sub-lease was more than that fixed in the original lease fair rent and purchase price had necessarily to be fixed on the basis of the rent as stipulated in the sub-lease. So in that case also in calculating contract rent for fixation of fair rent and purchase price the question did not really arise whether the contract rent was the purapad of three paras of paddy or the total rent of 75 paras of paddy fixed in the original lease transaction. The correctness of the fixation of the purchase price was not challenged at all in those two cases. The correctness of the fixation of the purchase price was not challenged at all in those two cases. In deciding on apportionment their Lordships were mainly concerned there with interpretation of the words "profits derived from the holding" occurring in S.72 G(2) and the explanation to it. The words 'contract rent' appear nowhere in those provisions. Only the word 'rent' appears there. There was no need therefore to consider in that case the correctness of the decision in Subhadra Thampatty v. Muhamad Alias Kunjan Haji & Others 1972 KLT 459 and it was not considered also there. In the present case there is no scope at all for the application of the provisions of S.72G and making apportionment because there is no intermediary and the whole purchase price has to go to the land owner. In such circumstances the decisions in CRP. Nos. 475 of 1973 and 1043 of 1974 has no application to a case of the present kind where on the basis of contract rent fair rent has to be fixed for calculation of the purchase price. 11. Here the agreed rent was 200 paras of paddy. Out of that in the hands of the tenants they were allowed to appropriate the amounts they paid as land revenue and land cess. Besides they were also allowed to appropriate the interest on the kanarthom of Rs. 100/- paid by them to the landlord. Thereafter they were directed to deliver the residual rent of 25 odd paras of paddy to the land owner. It is not correct to say that in such circumstances only 25 odd paras of paddy was 'payable' by the tenants to the land owner. The very fact that the tenants were allowed to make appropriations of the whole rent except 25 odd paras of paddy shows that the whole of 200 paras of paddy was with them and available for making the appropriation. The very meaning of the word 'michavaram' as 'residual rent' indicates that rent is something more than michavarom. 12. If we may say so with respect, the decision in Subhadra Thampatty v. Muhamad Alias Kunjan Haji and Others 1972 KLT 459 lays down the law on the subject correctly and we express our respectful accord with it. 13. The contract rent here is found as 200 paras of paddy. Accordingly this revision petition is allowed and the purchase price is fixed on Rs. 13. The contract rent here is found as 200 paras of paddy. Accordingly this revision petition is allowed and the purchase price is fixed on Rs. 5,788/-. The Land Tribunal is directed to make suitable alterations in the entries in the form in Appendix If. The revision petitioner is allowed to recover his costs here from respondents 1 to 10. Allowed.