(1.) THE defendant revision petitioner was a kudikidappukaran in a property purchased by the plaintiff-respondent. THE plaintiff sued for an injunction restraining the defendant kudikidappukaran from enlarging or altering the existing building and other reliefs. A temporary injunction was granted. On the defendant's application, the order was modified and he was allowed to repair the ceiling and thatch the building. Another application was filed * by him subsequently stating that the building was so old and damaged that it could not be repaired and praying that he may be permitted to erect a new building of the same perimeter as the existing one. THE trial court allowed the application, but on appeal the order was reversed by the District Judge. THE defendant has therefore filed this revision petition.
(2.) THE reason which appears to have weighed with the lower appellate court was that since the date of the trial court's order, the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, IV of 1961, was passed which enabled the landlord to evict the kudikidappukaran in case he required the land for his own use. All that he has to do in such a case is to provide another site, five cents in extent, within one mile of the present site and to pay the cost of the building and reasonable cost of shifting the homestead to the new site. It was stated that this application was filed after the landlord issued a notice demanding the shifting of the homestead to a new site. THE respondent wants to exercise this right and secure possession of the site of the existing building on payment of its value and cost of removal. If the kudikidappukaran is allowed to construct a new building now, the value of that will normally have to be paid by the landlord in the event of eviction. THE safeguard imposed by the trial court, namely, that the perimeter of the building should be the same, is not of much use as a multi-storied building can be erected on the site, which the owner will ultimately be bound to pay for.