MAMMU Vs. ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellate Authority under the Land Reforms Act has refused to accept the rent as found by the Commissioner only on the basis that the scheme of the Act and its subsequent amendments will indicate that a building whose value will be above Rs. 750/- would have fetched a rental of Rs. 5/ -. THEre is no basis for this and hence the Appellate Authority's conclusion that the rent will be above Rs. 5/ is incorrect.

(2.) IT follows that the building is a but coming within the purview of the definition in S 2 (25) of the Land Reforms Act. There is no case that the petitioner does not satisfy the other requirements of the definition to make him a kudikidappukaran. I find that he is a kudikidappukaran entitled to purchase the kudikidappu. The order of the Appellate Authority challenged in revision in CRP. 781 is set aside and that of the Land Tribunal restored. From this it follows that the landlord is not entitled to claim eviction of the petitioners from the building Hence CRP, 1784 is allowed, the order of the District Judge challenged in revision is set aside and the rent control petition dismissed. Thus both the revisions are allowed. I make no order as to costs. Allowed. . .