(1.) THE fourth respondent landlord, filed an application for eviction of the petitioner from a building in his occupation, on the ground of bona fide need for reconstruction, under S. II (4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the Act ). THE petition was filed on 14-8-1969 prior to the commencement on 1-1-1970 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969. According to the landlord, the petitioner-tenant bad been inducted into possession of the building on 15-7-1953 as per the rent deed ext. Al. executed by the petitioner to the fourth respondent's mother.
(2.) THE tenant-petitioner contended inter alia that he bad been put in possession of the building with 22 cents of adjacent property, that he had made improvements to the building in the first instance, and subsequently reconstructed it, and that therefore, it did not need reconstruction.
(3.) AFTER the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal before the Appellate Authority on July 17,1973, the petitioner filed an application O. A. No. 798 of 1973 before, the Land Tribunal, Palluruthy for purchase of kudikidappu rights under S. 80-B'of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. This application was dismissed by the Land Tribunal at Ernakulam (to which it stood transferred) and this decision was affirmed by the Appellate Authority (Land reforms ), Ernakulam on November 16,1981. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision Petition, C. R. P. No. 934 of 1981, in this court under S. 103 of the land Reforms Act which was heard and dismissed on November 2,1983. Inter alia this court held that the petitioner was in possession of the building under the rent deed (Ext Al ) dated 15-7-1953 and that be had never had any claim or plea of being a kudikidappukaran in the proceedings under the Rent Control Act. On the other hand his contention was that he was a tenant of the building and of about 22 cents of land. In these circumstances, apart from others, it was held that the petitioner was not entitled to claim to be a kudikidappukaran.