SUBBAYYA CHETTIYAR Vs. AYYAPPAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner filed O.A. 119 of 1983, under S.80B of the K.L.R. Act for purchase of kudikidappu right. The application was allowed by the Land Tribunal by its order dated 6-8-1985 finding that the revision petitioner is a kudikidappukaran. Against that order the first respondent herein filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) According to the revision petitioner he is occupying a hut in Sy. No. 14/54 Iranimuttom Village in Trivandrum taluk. The Land Tribunal found that the petitioner has been residing in the hut for the last 30 years, and the cost of construction of the hut would come to Rs. 300/-. It was also found that the applicant petitioner was not having any land of his own either as owner or as tenant where he could construct a building. Exts.C1 and C2 are the report and the draft sketch prepared by the revenue inspector. The revenue inspector in his report dated 22-2-1985 stated that the applicant has been residing in a small thatched hut and the walls of the hut are made up of mud and there are only two rooms and a 'charthu' and on the basis of this evidence the Land Tribunal allowed the application for purchase of kudikidappu rights.

(3.) The Appellate Authority interfered with the finding of the Land Tribunal for the reason that the applicant had filed an application under S.13 of Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 2 of 1965) and therefore he cannot claim that he is a kudikidappukaran. The Appellate Authority relied on the decision of this Court in Kumaran Nair v. Damodaran Nair ( 1986 KLT 461 ). The finding of the Appellate Authority seems to be that since the petitioner invoked the benefit of the provisions of Act 2 of 1965 he is estopped from contending that he is a kudikidappukaran. In the decision cited above the petitioner filed an application for fixation of fair rent. Thereafter he also filed an application under S.13 of Act 2 of 1965 for the restoration of the amenities withheld by the landlord. The landlord contended that he is kudikidappukaran and a petition under S.13 of Act 2 of 1965 was not maintainable. Despite the objection by the landlord the petitioner therein maintained that he is a tenant entitled to . the benefit of the provisions of Act 2 of 1965. Subsequently he filed petition under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Then the court held that he had invoked the provisions of Act 2 of 1965 and contended that he was a tenant of a building and the definition of the tenant of a building does not include a kudikidappukaran. Therefore he was estopped from contending at a later stage that he was a kudikidappukaran. The claim of kudikidappu was repelled by this court with the following observation.