KUNHI MOIDEEN HAJI Vs. ANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of a proceeding under S. 80b of the Kerala Land Reforms Act instituted before the Land Tribunal, tellicherry by the respondents herein praying for the purchase of the site of a kudikidappu occupied by them on a property belonging to the revision petitioners. The main defence taken to the said application by the revision petitioners was that the applicants were holding the property as lessees under a registered marupat dated 3rd March, 1960 and that it is not open to a person having a leasehold interest in a land to claim the status of a kudikidappukaran under S. 2 (25) of the Land Reforms Act. THIS contention was negatived by the land Tribunal as well as by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kozhikod e. Hence the revision petitioners have come up to this court under S. 103 of the act.

(2.) IT is true that an extent of 1/4 cent of land was leased out by the revision petitioners in favour of the respondents herein as per a registered marupat dated 3rd March, 196 0 for the specific purpose of enabling the respondents to construct a residential house and live on the property. The question is whether by reason of the fact that the respondents had thus acquired a leasehold interest in the land they are disqualified from claiming the status of kudikidappukars under S. 2 (25) of the Land Reforms Act. IT is very strongly urged on behalf of the revision petitioners that the definition contained in clause (25) of S. 2 of the Act does not contemplate that a kudikidappukaran will have "possession" of the land on which he has been permitted to put up a homestead,' since the expression used in the definition clause is "use and occupation". According to the counsel for the revision petitioners the legislature has maintained a deliberate distinction between "possession"' and 'use and occupation". Counsel laid stress on the fact that with reference to the character of the custody which the landlord has in respect of the land the legislature has employed the expression "possession" in the very same clause. IT is argued that in using such differential terminology the legislature has made it clear that what is transferred by the owner of the land to the kudikidappukaran is not the entirety of the possession as would be the case if a lease were to be granted but only something very much less, which, according to the learned advocate, has been characterised by the words "use and occupation". Although this argument may prima facie lock attractive its glamour fades when one turns to the definition of 'rent' contained in clause (49 ). of the very same section. Under the scheme of the Act what is agreed to be paid by a tenant to the landlord for his being allowed to be in possession and enjoyment of the latter's land is'rent'. But'rent' is defined as whatever is lawfully payable in money or in kind or in both by a person permitted to have the "use and occupation" of any land belonging to the person so permitting, and includes michavaram, but does not include customary dues. Hence the amount payable by a lessee to the landlord viz. , the rent, is described in the Act as the consideration agreed to be paid for the permission granted to the lessee to have the "use and occupation" of the land belonging to the lessor. IT is thus seen that even the possession of a lessee is referred to by the legislature as "use and occupation" while defining the expression "rent". IT is not therefore possible to accept the petitioners' contention that any clear distinction has been maintained by the Act while using the two expressions, namely, "possession" and "use and occupation" and they are intended to convey different meanings. On the contrary the two expressions appear to have been used as conveying more or less the same meaning and content.

(3.) THE civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. But, I direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Dismissed. . .