1. The fourth defendant in a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title is the appellant, the plaintiff being the respondent. The courts below have held that the appellant is a trespasser; and on that basis, they have also granted a decree in favour of the respondent for recovery of possession. The second appeal is against that decision. After Act 35 of 1969 amending Act 1 of 1964 came into force, the appellant filed the civil miscellaneous petition seeking leave for raising an additional ground in the second appeal; and we allow the same. The question thus raised is the only question we have to consider in the second appeal; and the question is whether, even if the appellant is only a trespasser, be is entitled to immunity from eviction, in view of S.2 (25) (b) of Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969.

S. 2 (25) defines "kudikidappukaran". The clause reads: "kudikidappukaran" means a person who has neither a homestead nor any land exceeding in extent three cents in any city in possession either as owner or as tenant.

on which be could erect a homestead and.

(a) who has been permitted with or without an obligation to pay rent by a person in lawful posses