The cost of construction at the time of original construction, excluding subsequent modifications, is crucial for determining 'kudikidappu' status. Legislative intent emphasizes protection for landless agricultural laborers.

1. The 2nd respondent owns a building in Ward No. 4 of Cannanore Municipality. It had initially a thatched roof, but in 1952, some repairs or additional constructions were undertaken, when the old roofing was replaced by a tiled one. It was let out to the petitioner in 1965 on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. In 1971 or so the petitioner moved the Land Tribunal under S.80B of Act I of 1964 for "purchase of kudikidappu", and the question arose whether the building could be treated as a but under S.2(25) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the cost of construction relevant for the purpose was the cost initially incurred i. e. before repairs or re-construction in 1952. That was below Rs. 750/-. The 2nd respondent contended that the cost of reconstruction in 1952 was also relevant; and if this was included, the figure was above Rs. 750/-. The Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority upheld the latter contention and held that the building was not a hut. Hence this revision by the petitioner.

2. S.2(25) defining 'kudikidappu' and 'kudikidappukaran' reads as follows:

"2.(25) "Kudikidappukaran" means a person who has neither a homestead nor any land exceeding in extent three cents in any city or major municipality or five cents in any other municipality or ten cents in any Panchayat area or township, in possession either as owner or as tenant, on which he could erect a homestead and

(a) who has been permitted with or without an obligation to pay rent by a person in lawful possession of any land to have the use and occupation of a portion of such land for the purpose of erecting a homestead; or

(b) who has been permitted by a person in lawful possession of any land to occupy, with or without an obligation to pay rent, a but belonging to such person and situate in the said land; and "kudikidappu" means the land and the homestead or the but so permitted to be erected or occupied together with the easements attached, thereto:"

Explanation II to the sub-section is also relevant, and that reads: "Explanation II For the purposes of this clause,

(a) "hut" means any dwelling house constructed by a person other than the person permitted to occupy it

(i) at a cost, at the time of construction, not exceeding seven hundred and fifty rupees; or

(ii) which could have at the time of construction yielded a monthly rent not exceeding five rupees, and includes any such dwelling house reconstructed by the kudikidappukaran in accordance with the provisions of S.79; and

(b) "homestead" means, unless the context otherwise requires, any dwelling house erected by the person permitted to have the use and occupation of any land for the purpose of such erection, and includes any such dwelling house reconstructed by the kudikidappukaran in accordance with the provisions of S.79."

3. In Lakshmi v. Kunhipparechan (1978 KLT. 122) where the tenant himself had made modifications to the building after his induction, Bhaskaran J. (as he then was) took the view that "time of construction" in Explanation II meant the time of initial or original construction, and that the cost subsequently incurred for modification or reconstruction was irrelevant. It was observed:

The legislature consciously wanted to have the right of the kudikidappukaran determined with reference to the value of the dwelling house as it existed at the time of its construction, not as it existed at the time of the coming into force of the Act or any other point of time If a reasonable interpretation, bearing the legislative intent in mind, is given, the expression,'cost' at the time of construction has to be construed to be the cost at the time of original construction of the structure, without including therein the

cost subsequently incurred by the land owner"

Dealing with the objection that what the kudikidappukaran was purchasing under S.80A and 80B of the Act was not the original structure, but the reconstructed one, his Lordship said:

"the difficulty could be got over by making a practical approach