Judgment :- 1. The Land Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner under S.26 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 as amended, for recovery of arrears of rent, for the reason that no application for resumption of the holding had been pending during the period for which rent has been claimed. Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) confirming the order, this revision has been preferred under S.103 of the Act. 2. S.26 of the Act enables a landlord to apply to the Land Tribunal in the prescribed form for recovery of arrears of rent due to him from his tenant. No court or other authority or officer other than the Land Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain any claim for arrears of rent. S.13 of the Act confers fixity of tenure in respect of holding on the tenant with effect from 1-1-1970. The right, title and interest of the land owner in respect of the holdings held by cultivating tenant entitled to fixity of tenure under S.13 vests in the Government free from all encumbrances by virtue of S.72 of the Act. 3. Sub-s. (4) of S.72 of the Act however provides that where in the case of a holding, the land owner is a small holder, the right, title and interest of the land owner in respect of such holding shall vest in the Government (a) on the expiry of six months from the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, or on the date notified under sub-s. (1), whichever is later, in cases where no application for resumption of the holding or part of the holding has been preferred; (b) in any case where application for resumption has been preferred, on the date on which the order rejecting such application, either in part or in full, has become final or on the date notified under sub-s. (1), whichever is later. 4. S.17 enables a small holder to resume from his tenant a portion of the holding not exceeding one half, provided that, by such resumption, the total extent of land in the possession of the small holder shall not be raised above two and a half standard acres or five acres in extent, whichever is greater. 5. 4. S.17 enables a small holder to resume from his tenant a portion of the holding not exceeding one half, provided that, by such resumption, the total extent of land in the possession of the small holder shall not be raised above two and a half standard acres or five acres in extent, whichever is greater. 5. It is clear from the aforesaid provisions of the Act that the right, title and interest of a small holder in respect of the holding does not vest in the Government in a case where an application for resumption of the holding or part has been preferred until that application for resumption has been finally rejected. If the application for resumption has been allowed, the land owner is entitled to receive the rent for the period during which the application had been pending and that right could therefore be enforced by an application under S.26 of the Act. Even in a case where the application for resumption has been allowed but possession has not been obtained and the tenant continues to hold, the liability to pay the rent does not cease. Therefore irrespective of the question whether the application for resumption had been pending when the rent accrued due, if it is proved that the application for resumption had been finally allowed and there had been no vesting or right, title and interest of the land owner in the Government as provided under S.72 of the Act, the land owner is entitled to realise the rent in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Land Tribunal, on an application made in this behalf has then to consider whether the tenant had been holding the land during the period for which rent has been claimed. If resumption has been ultimately allowed and the tenant had been holding the land during the period, the landlord is entitled to an order for recovery of arrears of rent subject to the other provisions of the Act. 6. The application cannot be rejected for the sole reason that the application for resumption had not been pending during the period for which rent has been claimed. In the present case the revision petitioner is stated to have moved the Land Tribunal for arrears of rent for the period from 15-3-1975 to 15-3-1977. 6. The application cannot be rejected for the sole reason that the application for resumption had not been pending during the period for which rent has been claimed. In the present case the revision petitioner is stated to have moved the Land Tribunal for arrears of rent for the period from 15-3-1975 to 15-3-1977. The application for resumption filed in 1965 has been re-numbered as O.A.No. 483 of 1971 and allowed in 1972. The delay in making the deposit as per the order had been finally condoned by the order of this Court in C. R.P. Nos. 3744 and 3745 of 1977. The application for resumption thus stands allowed. 7. It has been submitted that the land had been delivered over to the revision petitioner after 1977. Since there had been no vesting of the land owner's right under S.72 of the Act, the revision petitioner is entitled to realise the rent for the period in question provided the tenant-respondent had been in actual possession until 15-3-1977. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that all the relevant documents have been produced before the lower authorities but have not been considered. The authorities have proceeded on the wrong assumption that it is necessary for the land owner to prove that the application for resumption had been pending during the period for which arrears of rent had been claimed. The petitioner had also not produced before the authorities the copy of the final order in revision. It has therefore become necessary to remand the matter to the Land Tribunal for disposal afresh in accordance with law. In case it is found that the resumption application had been pending on 1-1-1970 and had been finally allowed on deposit within the extended period, as now contended before this Court, the Land Tribunal has to consider the claim for arrears of rent on merits and determine the quantum if any recoverable by the petitioner. 8. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. The orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Land Tribunal for disposal afresh in accordance with law in the light of what has been stated above, after affording an opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.