VASUMATHY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd respondent owns a building in Ward No. 4 of Cannanore Municipality. It had initially a thatched roof, but in 1952, some repairs or additional constructions were undertaken, when the old roofing was replaced by a tiled one. It was let out to the petitioner in 1965 on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. In 1971 or so the petitioner moved the Land Tribunal under S.80B of Act I of 1964 for "purchase of kudikidappu", and the question arose whether the building could be treated as a hut under S.2(25) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the cost of construction relevant for the purpose was the cost initially incurred i. e. before repairs or reconstruction in 1952. That was below Rs. 750/-. The 2nd respondent contended that the cost of reconstruction in 1952 was also relevant; and if this was included, the figure was above Rs. 750/-. The Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority upheld the latter contention and held that the building was not a hut. Hence this revision by the petitioner.

(2.) S.2(25) defining 'kudikidappu' and 'kudikidappukaran' reads as follows:

(3.) In Lakshmi v. Kunhipparechan ( 1978 KLT 122 ) where the tenant himself had made modifications to the building after his induction, Bhaskaran J. (as he then was) took the view that "time of construction" in Explanation II meant the time of initial or original construction, and that the cost subsequently incurred for modification or reconstruction was irrelevant. It was observed:-