ANDREW DECRUIZ Vs. ANNIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order of the learned Munsiff of Ernakulam refusing to stay the trial of a suit under the provisions of the Kerala stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1957 (Act I of 1957 ). The suit in question is to recover the site of a shed (or hut) which the defendant uses as a workshop for his business, to wit, carpentry, together with damages for use and occupation thereof. The suit was instituted in 1955, but as the trial was proceeding Act I of 1957 was enacted and the defendant made an application before the trial court to the effect that under s. 5 of the said Act the suit had to be stayed. s. 5 provides: "5. stay of proceedings against Kudikidappukars.-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, with effect on and from the commencement of this Act, no suit or other proceedings for eviction of a kudikidappukaran from his Kudiyiruppu or for the recovery of arrears of rent in respect of, or for damages for use and occupation of, the Kudiyiruppu from him, shall lie in any Court and all suits, proceedings in execution of decrees or orders or other proceedings pending in the Courts at such commencement for such eviction or recovery of arrears of such rent or damages shall be stayed. "

(2.) THE plaintiff opposed the application on the ground that the defendant was not a Kudikidappukaran and that the site in question did not constitute a Kudiyiruppu within the meaning of the Act. THE learned Munsiff accepted this contention, held that a but or shed used for commercial purposes did not fall within the purview of the Act and accordingly dismissed the defendant's application. Hence this revision.

(3.) SECTION 2, sub-SECTION (2) of Act I of 1957 states what a "hut" means and what is stated there is: " "hut" means any building which is constructed principally of wood, mud, leaves, grass on thatch;"