The cost of construction and rental yield for determining if a building is a hut should be reckoned with reference to the date of original construction, not including subsequent improvements. Reconstruction is construction, and the Act's applicability to the Cantonment area needs to be considered.

1. This revision is under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) -hereinafter referred to as the Act-against the order of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms). Kozhikode, confirming the decision of the Land Tribunal, Cannanore, rejecting the petitioner's application under S 80B of the Act, for the purchase of kudikidappu in respect of a building T. S No. 694 of Ward-III of the Cannanore Municipality. The building is situated in the Cantonment area within the Cannanore Municipal limits. The case of the applicant is that the building is a hut within the meaning of the Act, as amended by Act 35 of 1969 and the same is in occupation of her father and herself ever since 1927. Ext P2 dated 30-5-1927 is the registered coolichit executed by the applicant's father F. D' Sousa to the predecessor-in-title of the respondent. Ext. B2 dated 29-11-1951 is the sale deed as per which the respondent purchased the property from one Karunakaran Vydiar. Ext. P2 coolichit relates to building No. 893 of the Cantonment ward in Cannanore Municipality. The applicant claims to be a 'kudikidappukaran' within the meaning of the Act as amended for the reason that the building is a hut, the cost of construction of which does not exceed Rs 750/-and that the same at the time of construction would not have yielded a monthly rent exceeding Rs. 5/-. The application was opposed by the respondent, the owner of the building principally on the ground that the building had been reconstructed in the year 1946 in accordance with Ext. B1 licence issued by the Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, Cannanore. The respondent also denied that the building was in the occupation of the applicant's father and the applicant from 1927.

2. The Land Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the building is not a hut within the meaning of the Act and hence the applicant is not a kudikidappukaran as defined in S.2, clause (25) of the Act. The Land Tribunal found that Ext. P2 coolichit is not shown as relating to the building in respect of which the application under S.80B of the Act is filed. It has relied on the report of the Revenue Inspector to show that the building was constructed at a cost of Rs. 1,500/-and that the same would have yielded a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- at the time of its construction.

3. In appeal, the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) found that Ext. P2 coolichit relates to the same building as in respect of which the application under S 80B of the Act is filed and that the applicant's father and the applicant had been in occupation of the building ever since 1927. It is also found that substantial improvements had been effected to the building by the respondent's predecessor-in-title in the year 1946. According to the Appellate Authority, the question as to whether the building is a hut or not should be decided with reference to its cost and rental yield after the improvements were effected. The appellate authority has relied on the Commissioner's report Ext. C2 which shows the cost of the old structure at Rs 379.75 and the cost of the additions effected at Rs 729 40. The Commissioner has estimated the total cost of construction including the cost of additions and modifications at Rs. 1107.15. The probable rent that the building would have yielded in its original condition is estimated at Rs. 3/- and after its repair and modification at Rs. 20 per month. On these materials the Appellate Authority has held:

"The repairs effected to the building in question is substantial which has to be regarded as an improvement adding to or enhancing the value of the building as such. By the improvements effected in 1946 the value of the building had been increased. The cost of the same is more than double the cost of construction of the original building as reported in Ext. C2. Therefore in view of the admitted repairs or improvements done to the building in 1946 which enhanced the value of the building, the cost of the same must nece