ITTIATHI KUNJAN Vs. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant in a suit for recovery of a part of a building let on a monthly rental of Rs. 3/-. The suit has been decreed concurrently in the Courts below and in this appeal the defendant claims the status of a kudikidappukaran and consequent immunity from eviction.

(2.) It is conceded that the room and the lean to occupied by him form a minor part of a substantial building, whose cost is well above rupees five thousand. The contention is that the cost of the room and lean to occupied by the defendant would not be over Rs. 500/- and therefore his occupation of the same with permission of the landlord constitutes him a kudikidappukaran within the definition of S.2(25)(ii) of the Act I of 1964. To attract that definition the building occupied by the claimant must be a "hut". The word 'hut' is well understood in common parlance to denote a building small in size and low in cost. A small part of a big building is never called a hut. The definition of a hut in the Act is as a "dwelling house" of cost not above Rs. 500/- or rental value not above Rs. 5/-. The expression "dwelling house" in the context connotes an entity in itself and not a part of a big building. The claim of status of a kudikidappukaran urged by the appellant has therefore no merit.