The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the expression 'cost at the time of construction' in S.2(25) of Act 1 of 1964, emphasizing the state of affairs at the time of the origin of the 'hut' and the need for a practical approach to assess the cost of modifications or additions made by the landlord or the kudikidappukaran.

1. Sri Raghavan, the predecessor-in-interest of the revision petitioners, filed an application under S.80-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969, hereinafter called the Act, for purchase of kudikidappu against the 1st respondent, the landowner. The Land Tribunal dismissed the application, and the Appellate Authority has confirmed the decision of the Land Tribunal. This has given rise to this revision under S.103 of the Act.

2. It was averred in the application that the cost of construction of the dwelling house at the time of its construction was Rs. 400/-, and the rent it could have yielded at that time was Rs. 3/e The contention of the first respondent was that the construction was in the year 1950, the cost of construction at that time was Rs.4000/-, and it was entrusted to the applicant in the year 1954 on a rent of Rs. 20/- per month. It is

the admitted case that it was in the year 1967 that the first respondent purchased the property in which the dwelling house is situate.

3. The decision of the Land Tribunal was based on Ext.C-1 report dated 15-10-1971 of the Special Revenue Inspector, according to whom the cost of construction of the dwelling house was Rs.1208.65. and the probable monthly rent Rs. 8/- In her report Ext. C-2, filed on 13-8-1975, the commissioner reported that the dwelling house was about 35 years old, the value of the house as assessed by her was Rs. 830.74, and the monthly rent it could have fetched was Rs. 7/e No objection is seen to have been filed by the first respondent to Ext. C-2 report. In his objection to Ext. C-2 report of the commissioner, the appellant (the predecessor-in-interest of the revision petitioners) had, inter alia, stated that the dwelling house was aged fifty years, and the valuation given by the commissioner, both in terms of the materials used and in terms of the rate adopted, was on the high side. It was also stated that no supervisory charge ought to have been added to the cost of labour and the materials to arrive at the cost of construction, and the dwelling house was not tiled at the time of construction; it was done subsequently,

4. In Para.3 of the affidavit dated 29-4-1975 sworn to by the appellant, and filed before the Appellate Authority, in support of the application for the issue of a commission, it is stated that the but included in the kudikidappu was taken on a rent of Rs. 3/- per month 45 years ago. As per an oral entrustment his mother came into possession, and after the death of his mother it was in the occupation of himself and family. It is also alleged that the cost of the house at the time of its construction was less than Rs. 400/-, and that with the permission of the then landlord, he bad saved the dwelling house from destruction, carrying out timely repairs of the house using reapers of coconut trees, old tiles, broken stones etc. Originally the dwelling house had only two small rooms, one kitchen and one small veranda. In his objections dated 8-1-1971 to the Revenue Inspector's report he bad stated that the house was entrusted to his mother on a rent of Rs. 3/- per month, and that for the sake of convenience certain repairs were effected by him. He also stated that he had at a cost of Rs. 350/- got the dwelling house electrified, The dwelling house was in the occupation of himself or his predecessor-in-interest continuously for the past 45 years. It was a small thatched structure at that time. He had since then replaced the thatched roof by tiled roof at his own cost, and that such cost should not be included in the cost of the dwelling house at the time of its construction. If the sum of Rs 350/- spent on electrification and the sum of Rs. 400/- spent on modifications and repairs are deducted from the value assessed by the revenue inspector, the cost of the bouse at the time of its construction could be found to be very negligible.

5. When the matter came up for argument, a question as to how the cost of t