Judgment :- 1. Defendants Nos,1 to 5 in O. S. No. 71 of 1965, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam, are the appellants in this appeal. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of a holding in the possession of the defendants for the years 1131 M.E. to 1140 M.E. by sale of the tenancy interest of the defendants in the plaint schedule property. The suit was instituted on 6th October, 1965. During the pendency of the suit, the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 35 of 1969, came into force on 111970. By the said Act S.73 of the principal Act was adequately amended. The amended provision was made applicable to pending proceedings also. Accordingly, the lower court applied the amended provisions of S.73 of Act 1 of 1964 in the present case, and, granted the plaintiff a decree for recovery of 3 years' rent at the rate of 351 paras and 5/16 edangazhies of paddy per year, and fixing the value of paddy at Rs. 4.33 per para. It also directed that the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover from the defendants the Advocate's fee by way of costs of the suit. It is contended by the defendants that the court below was wrong in fixing the price of paddy at Rs. 4.33 per para, because, the gazette rate notified under S.43 of the Act. in the year 1968 per quintal would work out Rs. 3.35 per para. Another point urged on behalf of the appellants is that the appellants had deposited in the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, to the credit of O.P. No. 29 of 1962, filed by the tenant, a sum of Rs. 2,513.20, without earmarking the said amount towards the rent of any particular year, and the said amount had also been withdrawn by the landlord in 1962. It is contended that in calculating the amount payable by the defendants under S.73 of the Act credit should have been given to them for the said payment of Rs. 2513.20. Lastly, it was submitted on the side of the appellants, that the court below has acted illegally in directing payment by the defendants of the Advocate's Fee incurred by the plaintiff. 2513.20. Lastly, it was submitted on the side of the appellants, that the court below has acted illegally in directing payment by the defendants of the Advocate's Fee incurred by the plaintiff. In support of this contention reliance was placed by them on clause (b) of sub-section (2) of S.73 of the Act, which, according to the defendants, prohibits the Court from awarding costs to the landlord in connection with the conduct of the case. 2. We find no merit in any of the points urged on behalf of the appellants. Under S.73 (1) of the Act, a tenant is entitled to get a discharge of all arrears of rent outstanding at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, on payment of the amount specified in the corresponding entry in Column 2 of the Table appended to the said subsection. Since the defendants are, admittedly, in possession of more than 10 acres of land in the aggregate the amounts specified in the relevant entry in column 2 is 'three years' rent or the actual amount in arrears, whichever is less'. There is an explanation to sub-section (1), which states, that for the purpose of the said sub-section, the rent for an year shall be deemed to be an amount equal to the rent payable for the year immediately preceding the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, and which has accrued due before such commencement. The amending Act having come into force on 111970, the amount of rent payable under S.73(1) has to be calculated with reference to the quantum of rent payable for the Calendar year ending December, 1969. It is not contended on the side of the appellants that the conversion rate notified under S.43 of the Act, in respect of the year 1969, was less than Rs. 4.33 per para specified in the judgment of the court below. The rate of Rs. 3 35 per para specified for 1968 has no relevancy at all to the matter, in view of the express provision contained in the explanation referred to above, and, the contention put forward by the appellants that the lower court ought to have calculated the value of the paddy only at the said rate of 3.35 per para is totally devoid of merit or force. 3. 3. Equally untenable is the second point urged on behalf of the appellants that the amount of Rs. 2,513.20 withdrawn by the landlord from out of the court deposit made to the credit of O.P. No. 29 of 1962 ought to have been given credit to by determining the amount of rent payable by the tenants under S.73 of the Act. As already noticed, what is required under S.73 (1) of the Act is, in a case like the present one, where the tenant possessed more than 10 acres, that the tenant should deposit three years' rent of the actual amount in arrears. There is no scope for making any deduction from the amounts representing three years, rent specified in column 2 of the table. The court below was, therefore, perfectly right in not taking into account the sum of Rs. 2,513.20 which is said to have been withdrawn by the landlord towards the arrears of rent in 1962. 4. The effect of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of S.73 does not, in our opinion, prohibit the court from awarding costs to the landlord in appropriate cases. It only empowers the court to include such portion of the costs as regards to the conduct of the proceedings after the commencement of Act 35 of 1969, in the amount to be specified in the order to be passed under that sub-section, whereby the tenant is to be called upon to deposit the said amount within the period specified by the court. Clause (b) makes it clear that the court is at liberty to fix the costs to be awarded to the landlord in connection with the conduct of the proceedings after the commencement of Act 35 of 1969. It however indicates that such costs shall not include the institution fee paid in respect of the suit or other proceedings and the costs incurred by the plaintiff prior to the commencement of Act 35 of 1969. What the lower court has done, in the case before us, is only to make the defendants liable for the Advocate's fee payable by the plaintiff. We see no error in the said direction issued by the court below, because, it is perfectly relatable to the proceedings in the suit, subsequent to the commencement of Act 35 of 1969. What the lower court has done, in the case before us, is only to make the defendants liable for the Advocate's fee payable by the plaintiff. We see no error in the said direction issued by the court below, because, it is perfectly relatable to the proceedings in the suit, subsequent to the commencement of Act 35 of 1969. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we confirm the judgment and decree of the court below and dismiss this appeal. But in the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to suffer their costs. Dismissed.