The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definitions of 'kudikidappukaran', 'hut', and 'homestead' under Act 1 of 1964, emphasizing the requirement of a separate and complete structure for 'hut' and 'homestead', which influenced the court's decision in determining the petitioner's status.

1. This case has been referred to a Full Bench for consideration of the question whether a person occupying a portion of a building belonging to another with the latter's permission is a 'kudikidappukaran' as defined in Act 1 of 1964, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. According to the respondent, the petitioner is a tenant governed by the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short the Rent Control Act. He sought eviction of the petitioner under S.11 of that Act on the ground that the petitioner had defaulted payment of rent. The petitioner inter alia denied that he is a tenant falling within the Rent Control Act and further urged that he is a 'kudikidappukaran' under the Act 1 of 1964. This contention of the petitioner was accepted by the Rent Control Court and also by the appellate authority.The respondent's petition for eviction was consequently dismissed. In further revision under S.20 of the Rent Control Act the District Court took the view that the petitioner is not a 'kudikidappukaran', mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not in occupation of a 'nut' belonging to the respondent and relied on the decision of Madhavan Nair J. in Ittiathi Kunjan v. Lakshmikutty Amma (1968 KLT. 888) in support of this conclusion. This revision petition under S.115 CPC., is filed against that order. The learned single judge who heard the matter considered the question for decision as fairly important and so referred it to a Division Bench. The Division Bench referred the question to a Full Bench.

3. To answer the question it is necessary to notice the nature of the schedule building and its location. The respondent has described the building in the rent control petition as Another portion in the same structure, is occupied by a stranger to this proceeding, and in a lean-to attached to that portion, a woman is carrying on a small trade. Whether the stranger is residing in the portion occupied by him or is carrying on a trade there is not clear from the evidence. The Rent Control Court has proceeded on the basis that the rooms in the building let to the petitioner are shop rooms. The case of the respondent is that the were rooms let out to the petitioner for carrying on a trade. However it is admitted that the petitioner is now residing there.

4. 'Hut" is defined in Explanation II to clause (25) of S.2 thus:

"(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 constructed by the kudikidappukaran in accordance with the provisions of S.79".

and S.2 (25) (b) which contains the relevant part of the definition with which we are concerned in this case runs thus:

"2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,

(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)

(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 easement attached thereto:"

We will assume without deciding that the purpose for which a building is used should normally be taken as the purpose for which the permission to occupy was given. Since the petitioner is admittedly residing in the rooms let, the only point to be considered is whether the petitioner is occupying a "dwelling house". The expression "dwelling house" is not defined in the Act. It generally