SYED MOHAMMED Vs. ABDUL SATHAR SAIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The effect of Explanation IIA inserted in S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 by amending Act 17 of 1972 arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant in Small Cause Suit No. 31 of 1968, a suit for arrears of rent on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cochin. The petitioner took on rent a room in a line building with a 'Charthu' attached to it from the respondent on 1-12-1124 on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. In 1965 the line building was demolished as the same and the property on which it stood was acquired by the State for widening of the road in front of the same. But the Charthu attached to it was not demolished as the property on which it stood was not acquired and the petitioner continued to occupy the same on payment of the stipulated rent of Rs. 15/-. As the rent was not paid, the respondent landlord filed the above Small Cause Suit for arrears of rent for the three years prior to the date of suit. The petitioner contended that he is entitled to kudikidappu right But the court below by its judgment dated 5-2-1975 decreed the suit as prayed for holding that for granting the relief sought in the suit it was not necessary to give a decision whether the petitioner has kudikidappu rights. The above decision was questioned by the petitioner before this Court in CRP. No. 801 of 1975. My learned brother Namboodiripad, J. remanded the matter to the court below for fresh consideration of the question whether the petitioner is a kudikidappukaran of the Charthu in question holding that if the defendant is a kudikidappukaran then, certainly, his liability to pay the rent also has to be adjudged on that basis in view of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.

(2.) Thereupon, the question whether the petitioner has got kudikidappu rights was again considered by the court below. The court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a kudikidappukaran for the reason that what was originally let out to the petitioner was part of a large building, and a portion of a building cannot be considered as a but or dwelling house as per the definition of kudikidappukaran in S.2(25) of the Act. The petitioner challenges the above finding of the court below in this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) A Full Bench of this Court ia Muhammad v. Imbichibi ( 1974 KLT 738 FB ) has construed Explanation II to S.2 (25) of the Act and held that a person occupying a portion of a building belonging to another is not a kudikidappukaran. Explanation IIA inserted by Amending Act 17 of 1972 reads: