MUHAMMAD Vs. IMBICHIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been referred to a Full Bench for consideration of the question whether a person occupying a portion of a building belonging to another with the latter's permission is a 'kudikidappukaran' as defined in Act 1 of 1964, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) According to the respondent, the petitioner is a tenant governed by the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short the Rent Control Act. He sought eviction of the petitioner under S.11 of that Act on the ground that the petitioner had defaulted payment of rent. The petitioner inter alia denied that he is a tenant falling within the Rent Control Act and further urged that he is a 'kudikidappukaran' under the Act 1 of 1964. This contention of the petitioner was accepted by the Rent Control Court and also by the appellate authority. The respondent's petition for eviction was consequently dismissed. In further revision under S.20 of the Rent Control Act the District Court took the view that the petitioner is not a 'kudikidappukaran', mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not in occupation of a 'nut' belonging to the respondent and relied on the decision of Madhavan Nair J. in Ittiathi Kunjan v. Lakshmikutty Amma ( 1968 KLT 888 ) in support of this conclusion. This revision petition under S.115 CPC., is filed against that order. The learned single Judge who heard the matter considered the question for decision as fairly important and so referred it to a Division Bench. The Division Bench referred the question to a Full Bench.

(3.) To answer the question it is necessary to notice the nature of the schedule building and its location. The respondent has described the building in the rent control petition as "cWvSp apdn ]oSn-I-Ifpw Nmcpw". Another portion in the same structure, is occupied by a stranger to this proceeding, and in a lean to attached to that portion, a woman is carrying on a small trade. Whether the stranger is residing in the portion occupied by him or is carrying on a trade there is not clear from the evidence. The Rent Control Court has proceeded on the basis that the rooms in the building let to the petitioner are shop rooms. The case of the respondent is that the were rooms let out to the petitioner for carrying on a trade. However it is admitted that the petitioner is now residing there.