KARTHIYANI PILLA Vs. APPI PENNU MATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No error of law. The words with or without an obligation to pay rent occurring in S.2(25) of Act I of 1964 which tells us what a Kudikidappukaran is - here the word rent is used in the ordinary sense of the word as the periodical payment made by a lessee to a lessor, the Act definition of rent in S.2(49) not being attracted, the subject matter of the transaction being like that of the lease in this case, only a dwelling house and not any land -- clearly show that the lessee of a dwelling house can be a kudikidappukaran provided that the other conditions required by the definition are satisfied. True a lessee occupies the property leased as of right and not by permission of the lessor but that the Act regards a lessee in the true sense of that word as defined in the Transfer of Property Act as a person permitted by the lessor to occupy the property leased is apparent both from the definition of tenant in S.2(57) as a person allowed to possess and enjoy the land of another and from the definition of rent in S.2(49) as whatever is lawfully payable by a person permitted to have the use and occupation of any land of the person so permitting. Both definitions, it can scarcely be denied, take in, and are in fact primarily designed to take in, the case of what I might call a true lessee of land.