BALAN MENON Vs. OMENA NAMBISHTATHIRIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner took on lease a shop building in 1959 from the then karanavan of the 1st respondent's tarwad for conducting a tea shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 3/- Later on the petitioner shifted his residence also to the shop building and continued the tea shop. In 1970 the 1st respondent moved the Rent Control Court for the eviction of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O A. No. 2772 of 1970 before the Land Tribunal, Mulanthuruthy under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act I of 1964 for short the Act, for purchase, contending that be is a kudikidappukaran. The application was allowed by the Land Tribunal, but in appeal the Appellate Authority remanded the case for fresh enquiry and disposal according to law to the Land Tribunal No. 1, Ernakulam. The purchase application was renumbered as O A. No 527 of 1975. The Land Tribunal dismissed the purchase application holding that the petitioner is not a kudikidappukaran. The petitioner took the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Ernakulam. But the appeal was also dismissed. It was then that the petitioner filed this revision. The questions that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the tenant of a building can claim to be a kudikidappukaran under The Travancore - Cochin Prevention of Eviction of Kudikidappukars, Act 13 of 1955; and (ii) if he cannot claim to be a kudikidappukaran under the above Act, in view of S.3(1)(iii) and the proviso to S.3(1)(iii) to (vii) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 is he entitled to purchase the kudikidappu under S.80B even if he is a kudikidappukaran as per the Act.

(2.) The petitioner's contention that the building now in existence is the building to which he shifted in 1961 with the permission of the landlord and it is not the building in respect of which Ext. B1 coolicharthu was executed in 1959 need only be stated and rejected. On this question of fact the concurrent findings of the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority are there, and it cannot be said that the findings are in any way erroneous in law.

(3.) S.3 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 reads: