1. This appeal is by the defendant in a suit for recovery of a part of a building let on a monthly rental of Rs. 3/-. The suit has been decreed concurrently in the Courts below and in this appeal the defendant claims the status of a kudikidappukaran and consequent immunity from eviction.

2. It is conceded that the room and the lean-to occupied by him form a minor part of a substantial building, whose cost is well above rupees five thousand. The contention is that the cost of the room and lean-to occupied by the defendant would not be over Rs. 500/- and therefore his occupation of the same with permission of the landlord constitutes him a kudikidappukaran within the definition of S.2(25)(ii) of the Act I of 1964. To attract that definition the building occupied by the claimant must be a "hut". The word 'hut' is well understood in common parlance to denote a building small in size and low in cost. A small part of a big building is never called a hut. The definition of a but in the Act is as a "dwelling house" of cost not above Rs. 500/- or rental value not above Rs. 5/-. The expression "dwelling house" in the context connotes an entity in itself and not a part of a big building. The claim of status of a kudikidappukaran urged by the appellant has therefore no merit.

The second appeal fails: it is accordingly dismissed, with costs.