MADHAVI AMMA & ORS.versusS. PRASANNAKUMARI & ORS.

                    [2013] 5 S.C.R. 307


                 MADHAVI AMMA & ORS.                          A
                             v.
              S. PRASANNAKUMARI & ORS.
          (Civil Appeal Nos. 2735-2736 of 2005)

                     MARCH 22,. 2013
                                                               B
     [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
               IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ,]

     Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963 - ss. 80, BOB, 79A, 102
and 125 - Eviction proceedings under the 1965 Act - C
Reference u/s.125(3) of the 1963 Act, by Rent Control
Authority calling for decision as to status of appellant(s) as a
tenant or Kudikidappukaran - On Reference, Land Tribunal
returned . a finding that appel/ant(s) was not a
Kudikidappukaran but was only a tenant occupying a building o
belonging to the respondent and not a hut or homestead -
Held: The only scope to challenge the conclusion of the Land
Tribunal was by way of an appeal under the provisions of 1965
Act by virtue of the specific stipulations contained in s. 125(6)
of the 1963 Act - In order for a person to claim the status of E
Kudikidappukaran, he has to ensure that the status claimed
is in the first instance accepted by the local authority in
appropriate proceedings uls.BO of the 1963 Act and more
importantly in proof for such acceptance his name is entered
as Kudikidappukaran in the register prepared and maintained F
for that purpose by the local authority - Approach made by
the appellant(s) by invoking s.BOB of the 1963 Act in order to
assert his right as Kudikidappukaran even without getting his
status ascertained in appropriate proceedings u/s. BO of the
 1963 Act was wholly invalid and rightly rejected by the original
authority - Appellate Authority failed to understand the scope, G
power and jurisdiction of Appellate power u/s.102 of the 1963
Act as against the order passed uls. BOB of the 1963 Act -
Order of Appellate Authority was, wholly without any jurisdiction
                            307                                H
    308     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A   and rightly set aside by the High Court - Kera/a Buildings
    (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

        Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963 - s.125 - Status of
  Kudikidappukaran - Determination - Bar of jurisdiction of Civil
  Court/Rent Control Court - Held: Such question can be
8
  exclusively decided only by the Land Tribunal - However,
  after such decision is rendered pursuant to a reference made
  to it and the ultimate decision of the Civil Court/Rent Control
  Court is taken up by way of appeal, the Appellate Court!
  appellate authority of a Civil Court or Rent Control Court while
C examining the merits of the decision of the concerned Civil
  Court or the original authority on the question of eviction can
  also examine the correctness of the decision rendered by the
  Land Tribunal as regards the status as a Kudikidappukaran.

D      The respondents landlord filed RCP No. 140/85 for
   eviction of the tenant, sub-tenant and other occupants
   under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
   1965. When that eviction petition was pending, one of the
   tenants, who was predecessor of the appellant (s) herein,
E filed a petition under Section 125 (3) of the Kerala Land
   Reforms Act,        1963 claiming         rights   as     a
   Kudikidappukaran. The Rent Controller referred the issue
   as to whether such a claim made by the tenant was
   admissible, to the Land Tribunal. The tenant also filed an
F application under Section 80B of the 1963 Act for
   purchase of Kudikidappu under his occupation of the
   lands before the Land Tribunal. By orders dated
   19.2.1991, the Land Tribunal returned a finding in the
   Reference made by the Rent Control Authority to the
G effect that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant (s)
   did not possess any Kudikidappu rights. In the
   application filed under Section 80B of the Act also such
   a claim came to the rejected. Having regard to the
   provisions contained in Section 125 (5) of the 1963 Act,
   the Rent Control proceedings in RCP 140/85 was
H·
MADKAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI              309


determined holding that the tenant's right as a              A
Kudikidappukaran was not maintainable and thereafter
the eviction petition was also ordered on merits in favour
of the respondent-landlord herein.

    On the side of the appellant (s), a separate appeal was B
preferred in AA 37/91 as against the rejection of the
application under section 808 of the 1963 Act which
came to be allowed by the Appellate Authority by its order
dated 13.11.1995. As against the order of the Rent Control
Authority in RCP No.140/85 dated 2.7.1991 on behalf of C
the appellant(s), an appeal was also preferred in RCA
No.133/1991 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
The said appeal was dismissed by order dated
28.10.1995. In the above stated background, the High
Court passed the impugned order confirming the order
of eviction as against the appellant (s) and also setting D
aside the order of the appellate authority dated 13.11.95
in AA 37of1991 passed under the provisions of 1963 Act.

     In the instant appeals, the appellant(s) contended
that irrespective of the decision of the Land Tribunal in    E
its order passed in the Reference Case being RC No.16/
89 dated 19.2.1991 which was acknowledged, approved
and accepted by the Rent Control Authority in its ultimate
order of eviction dated 02. 7.1991, the order which came
to be passed by the appellate authority under the 1963       F
Act in AA 37 of 1991 would prevail which has ultimate!~·
concluded       that    the    appellants'     right    as
Kudikiddappukaran was well-founded.

    Dismissing the appeals, the Court
                                                             G
     HELD: 1. Section 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms
Act, 1963 creates a bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court to
settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine
any matter which is by or under the 1963 Act required to
be settled, decidE!d or dealt with or to be determined by    H
     310     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A    the Land Tribunal or the Appellate Authority or the Land
     Board or the Taluk Land Board or the Government or an
     officer of the Government. Further the proviso to Section
     (1) to Section 125 excludes such a bar of civil Court
     jurisdiction in respect of proceedings pending in any
 B   Court at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms
     Amendment Act, 1969. Even while creating such a bar of
     jurisdiction of civil Courts, the law makers wanted to
     ensure that no person is allowed to abuse or misuse the
     benefits conferred under 1963 Act while claiming rights
 c   as a Kudikidappukaran and with that laudable object
     engraved sub-Section (3) in Section 125 itself by which
     any Civil Court or authority before whom any other
     proceedings regarding rights of. a tenant or of a
     Kudikidappukaran arise for consideration, enjoins upon
.D   such civil Court or other authority to stay the proceedings
     temporarily and also simultaneously make a reference to
     the Land Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in
     which the land or part thereof is situate along with the
      relevant records for the decision of the question as to
     whether a person is a tenant or a Kudikidappukaran.
 E   While under Section 125(3), having regard to the bar of
     jurisdiction of Civil Court/Rent Control Court to decide
     the question about the status of a Kudikidappukaran or
      a tenant which can be exclusively decided only by the
      land Tribunal, after such a decision is rendered pursuant
 F    to a reference made to it and the ultimate decision of the
      Civil Court/Rent Control Court is taken up by way of an
      appeal to the Appellate Court/appellate authority of a Civil
      Court or Rent Control Court while examining the merits
      of the decision of the concerned Civil Court or the
 G    original authority on the question of eviction can also
      examine the correctness of the decision rendered by the
      Land Tribunal as regards the status as a
      Kudikidappukaran. [Para 14] [332-B-F; 333-B-D]

 H         2. Serious discrepancy was' explicit in the order of
MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI               311


the Appellate Authority dated 13.11.1995 in AA 37/91. In      A
the first place, as rightly held by the High Court when a
Reference was made under Section 125 (3) of the 1963
Act by the Rent Control Authority calling for a decision
as to the status of the appellant(s) as a tenant or
Kudikidappukaran for the purpose of deciding the              B
eviction proceedings, and in that Reference the Land
Tribunal returned a finding that the appellant(s) was not
a Kudikidappukaran but was only a tenant occupying_ a
building belonging to the respondent and not a hut or
homestead, thereafter the only scope to challenge the         c
said conclusion of the Land Tribunal was only by way of
an appeal under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 by virtue of the
specific stipulations contained in Section 125(6) of the
1963 Act. [Para 19] [337-C-F]                                 o
    3. Consequently, when a decision was reached by
the Land Tribunal in a Reference made to it under Section
125 (3) of the 1963 Act, having regard to the scheme of
the Act as from the definition of Kudikidappukaran under
Section 2(25), the benefits that would accrue to a            E
Kudikidappukaran as provided under Section 79A, the
procedure prescribed under Section 80 by which a
person claiming the rights of Kudikidappukaran has to
ensure the recognition of such status as
Kudikidappukaran in a proceeding before the concerned         F
local authority and get his name registered in the
prescribed register to be prepared by the local authority
and to be maintained for that purpose, one fails to see
how any person claiming such status as
Kudikidappukaran can seek for such status to be               G
recognized by resorting to any other proceedings under
the other provisions of the 1963 Act. In order for a person
to claim the status of Kudikidappukaran for the purpose
of availing the benefits available as a Kudikidappukaran
as spelt out under Section 79A of the 1963 Act, he has        H
             ~                -- .
    312     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A to ensure that the status claimed by him as
  Kudikidappukaran is in the first instance accepted by the
  local authority in appropriate proceedings under Section
  80 of the Act and more importantly in proof for such
  acceptance his name is entered as Kudikidappukaran in
B the register prepared and maintained for that purpose by
  the local authority. If any such person is not able to get
  such recognition in the first instance before the local
  authority, the statute prescribes a remedy of appeal
  under Section 80(5) before appropriate appellate
c authority. Only after establishing such a right in the
  prescribed manner as provided under Section 80 of the
  Act, there would be any scope for anyone to claim validly
  that he is entitled for all the benefits that would flow from
  his status as a Kudikidappukaran. In other words, it can
  be validly stated that .the claim of a status of a
0
  Kudikidappukaran can be determined only under S~ction
  80 of the Act. [Para 20) [337-G-H; 338-A-F]

         4. In contradistinction to Section 80, what is provided
    under Sections 80A or 808 were the consequential
E   benefits such as the right to purchase the Kudikidappu
    and the procedure to be followed for effecting the
    purchase by approaching the concerned authorities and
    thereby ascertain his ownership rights after such
    purpose. By no stretch of imagination, the right to
F   purchase provided under Section 80A and the procedure
    prescribed for purchase ot such right under Section 808
    can be invoked, by a person whose status as
    Kudikidappukaran was yet to be ascertained earlier. The
    approach made by the appellant(s) by invoking Section
G   808 of the Act in order to assert his right as
    Kudikidappukaran even without getting his status
    ascertained in the appropriate proceedings under Section
    80 of the Act was wholly invalid and was rightly rejected
    by the original authority in its order dated 19.2.1991 in OA
H   78/88. The Appellate Authority that decided the appeal as
..
 '



      MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 313


     against the said order in AA 37/91 failed to understand      A
     the scope, power and jurisdiction of Appellate power
     under Section 102 of the Act as against the order passed
     under Section SOB of the 1963 Act which resulted in the
     passing of the order dated 13.11.1995 in AA 37/91. The
     order of the Appellate Authority (LR) Attingal, dated        B
     13.11.1995 in AA 37/91 was, wholly without any
     jurisdiction and was rightly set aside by the High Court.
     [Paras 21, 22] [338-G-H; 339-A-D, E]

          5. The only other aspect to be examined is the
     correctness of the order passed by the Rent Control          C
     Authority in RCP No.140/85 dated 2.7.1991 on the merits
     of ground of eviction, namely, the alleged default in
     payment of rent, necessity for demolition and re-
     construction and the claim for own-occupation. In those
     aspects, as the conclusion was arrived at by the Rent        D
     Control Court based on a detailed consideration of the
     merits which are mainly based on facts and in the
     absence of any legal error in the said conclusion arrived
     at by the Rent Control Authority as well as the Rent
     Control Appellate Authority in the decision dated            E
     28.10.1995 passed in RCA No.133/91, there is no scope
     to find fault with the ultimate decision of the High Court
     in dismissing the revision preferred by the appellant(s).
     The decision of the High Court in allowing the revision
     preferred by the respondent as against the order of the      F
     appellate authority (LR) dated 13.11.1995 in AA 37/91 was
     also justified. [Para 23] [339-F-H; 340-A-B]

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
     2735-2736 of 2005.
                                                                  G
         From the Judgment & Order dated 18.12.2002 of the High
     Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRP No. 833 and 1411 of
     1996.

         Romy Chacko, Varun Mudgal for the Appellants.            H
    314      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A       S. Balakrishnan, Bina Madhavan, Praseena E. Joseph, P.
    Narasimhan, Subramonium Prasad, S.N. Jha for the
    Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B      FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. These
  appeals are directed against the common judgment of the
  Division Bench of the High Court of Kera la at Ernakulam dated
  18.12.2002 passed in CRP No.1411/1996 (C) and CRP
  No.833/1996(H). CRP No.1411/1996 (C) was preferred by one
C Appukuttan Nair along with the appellant (s) herein challenging
  the decision of the Rent Control Appellate Authority,
  Thiruvananthapuram dated 28.10.1995 in RCA No.133/1991
  by which the eviction ordered by the Rent Control Court in its
  order dated 02.7.1991 in RCP No.140/1985 was confirmed.
D CRP. No.833 of 1996 (H) was preferred by the respondents
  herein challenging the order of the Appellate Authority (LR),
  Attingal in AA No.37/91 dated 13.11.1995 by which the order
  of the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram dated 19.02.1991 in
  OA No.78/1988 filed by the predecessor of the appellant (s),
E namely, Appukkuttan Nair under Section 80B of the Kerala
  Land Reforms Act for the purchase of his Kudikidappu right in
  respect of survey No.1536/A of Vanchiyoor Village,
  Thiruvananthapuram Taluk was reversed.

        2. By the common order of the Division Bench, the eviction
F   ordered by the Authorities under the Kerala Rent Control Act,
    1963 and Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965
    was confirmed and the order of the appellate authority dated
    13.11.1995 in AA 37/1991 was set aside.

G      3. To trace the brief facts, the respondents landlord filed
  RCP No. 140/85 for eviction of the tenant, sub-tenant and other
  occupants under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease
  and Rent Control) Act, 1965 hereinafter called 'the 1965 Act'.
  When that eviction petition was pending, at the instance of one
H of the tenants, who was predecessor of the appellant (s) herein
 MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 315
   [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
filed a petition under Section 125 (3) of the Kerala Land            A
Reforms Act, 1963 hereinafter called 'the 1963 Act' by which
the predecessor of the appellant (s) claimed rights as a
Kudikidappukaran. The learned Rent Controller referred the
issue as to whether such a claim made by the tenant was
admissible, to the Land Tribunal, having jurisdiction over the       B
area in which the land situated together with the relevant
records for the decision on that question.

     4. Be that as it may, the tenant also filed an application
under Section 80B of the 1963 Act for purchase of Kudikidappu
under his occupation of the lands before the Land Tribunal. By       C
independent orders dated 19.2.1991, the Land Tribunal returned
a finding in the Reference made by the learned Rent Control
Authority to the effect that the predecessor-in-interest of the
appellant (s) did not possess any Kudikidappu rights. In the
application filed under Section 80B of the Act also such a claim     D
came to the rejected. Having regard to the provisions contained
in Section 125 (5) of the 1963 Act, the Rent Control
proceedings in RCP 140/85 was determined holding that the
tenant's right as a Kudikidappukaran was not maintainable and
thereafter the eviction petition was also ordered on merits in       E
favour of the respondent-landlord herein.

      5. On the side of the appellant (s), a separate appeal was
 preferred in AA 37/91 as against the rejection of the application
 under section 80B of the 1963 Act which came to be allowed          F
 by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 13.11.1995. As
_against the order of the Rent Control Authority in RCP No.140/
 85 dated 2.7.1991 on behalf of the appellant(s), an appeal was
 also preferred in RCA No.133/1991 before the Rent Control
 Appellate Authority. The said appeal was dismissed by order         G
 dated 28.10.1995.

      6. It is in the above stated background, the Division Bench
 of the High Court passed the impugned order confirming the
 order of eviction as against the appellant (s) and also setting
.aside the order of the appellate authority dated 13.11.95 in AA     H
                                                                             ..

    3~6     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 5 S.C.R.
                                                                       ..,




A   37 of 1991 passed under the provisions of 1963 Act.
                                                                       ...
        7. We .heard Mr. Romy Chacko, Advocate for the
  appellant(s) and Sri Balakrishnan, learned senior counsel for
  the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant(s)
  vehemently contended that irrespective of the decision of the
8
  Land Tribunal in its order passed in the Reference Case being
  RC No.16/89 dated 19.2.1991 which was acknowledged,
  approved and accepted by the learned Rent Control Authority
  in its ultimate order of eviction dated 02.7.1991, the order which
  came to be passed by the appeliate authority under the 1963
C Act in AA 37 of 1991 would prevail which has ultimately
  concluded that the appellants' right as Kudikiddappukaran was
  well-founded. In other words, according to learned counsel as
  the claim of the appellant(s) as Kudikiddapkaran under the
  provision of 1963 Act was substantial in nature which has been
D examined and held in their favour by the concerned authority
  under the provision of the 1963 Act, the same should prevail
  over the rent control proceedings which was contrary to the
  decision passed under the 1963 Act.

E      8. As against the above submission, Sri Balakrishnan,
  learned senior counsel for the respondent-landlord contended
  that the claim of the appellant(s) as the Kudikidappukaran
  having been rejected by the authority constituted under the 1963
  Act, in a Reference made to it which issue was also subject
F matter of consideration in the appeal preferred against the
  order of the Rent Control Authority, namely, before the Rent
  Control Appellate Authority as provided under Section 125(6)
  of the Act, the said decision could alone determine the rights
  of the appellant(s) even as regards the status as
G Kudikidappukaran and any contrary finding made in an
  application under Section 808 of the 1963 Act cannot prevail
  over the proceedings under Section 125 of the 1963 Act.

       9. The crucial question which arises for consideration in
  this appeal is as to what is the scheme of the Act in regard to
H the decision as to the status of a person as Kudikidappukaran,
_.,,
         MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 317
           [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
        his rights and entitlements on the one hand and the effect of A
        the decision of the Civil Court or any other authority in deciding
        an issue relating to the rights of a landlord as against a tenant
        in which any question is raised by the tenant claiming rights as
        a Kudikidappukaran.
                                                                           8
              10. In order to decide the above question some of the
        relevant provisions of the 1963 Act require to be noted, namely,
        Section 2 (25) the definition of 'Kudikidappukaran', Section 79A
   .[   which prescribes the customary and other rights of
        Kudikidappukaran, Section 80 which prescribes the procedure
        for the registration of a person as Kudikidappukaran, Sections        c
        80A and 808 which prescribe the right of Kudikidappukaran,
        to purchase his Kudikidappu rights and the procedure to be
        followed for effecting such purchase. Under Section 102 of the
        Act the right of appeal against an order passed under Section
        808 of the 1963 Act is provided. Provision for revision before D
        the High Court is provided under Section 103 of the Act as
        against any Appellate Authority's decision. There is an in built
        provision under Section 125 for making a Reference to a Land
        Tribunal to decide the question about the status of a person as
         Kudikidappukaran and further appeal remedy against such a E
        decision. The said provisions are as under:

             "2.(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
                                                                              F
             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) who has been permitted with or without an obligation
             to pay rent by a person in lawful possession of any land to G
             have the use and occupation of a portion of such land for
             the purpose of erecting a homestead; or

             (b) who has been permitted by a person in lawful
             possession of any land to occupy, with or without an H
    318       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 5 S.C.R.      ...

A         obligation to pay rent, a hut belonging to such person and
          situate in the said land; and "Kudikidappu" means the land
          and the homestead or the hut so permitted to be erected
          or occupied together with the easements attached thereto:

          [xxxx]
B
          Explanation I. - In calculating the total extent of the land
          of a Kudikidappukaran for the purposes of this clause,
          three cents in a city or major municipality, shall be deemed
          to be equivalent to five cents in any other municipality, and
c         three cents in a city or major municipality or five cents in
          any other municipality shall be deemed to be equivalent to
          ten cents in a panchayat area or township.

          Explanation II. - For the purposes of this clause.
D
          (a) "huf' 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
E
          (ii) which could have at the time of construction, yielded a
          monthly rent not exceeding five rupees,

          and includes any such dwelling house reconstructed by the
          Kudikidappukaran in accordance with the provisions of
F         section 79; and

          (b) "homestead" means, unless the context otherwise
          requires, any dwelling house erected by the person
          permitted to have the use and occupation of any land for
G         the purpose of such erection, and includes any such
          dwelling house reconstructed by the Kudikidappukaran in
          accordance with the provisions of section 79.

          [Explanation llA. - Notwithstanding any judgement, decree
          or order of any court, a person, who, on the 16th day of
H
      MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 319
        [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
        August, 1968, was in occupation of any land and the           A
_,.     dwelling house thereon (whether constructed by him or by
        any of his predecessors-in-interest or belonging to any
        other person) and continued to be in such occupation till
        the 1st day of January, 1970, shall be deemed to be a
        Kudikidappukaran:                                             B

        Provided that no such person shall be deemed to be a
        Kudikidappukaran-
l,
        (a) in cases where the dwelling house has not been
        constructed by such person or by any of his predecessors-     c
        in-interest, if-

        (i) such dwelling house was constructed at a cost, at the
        time of construction, exceeding seven hundred and fifty
        rupees; or                                                    D
        (ii) such dwelling house could have, at the time ,of
        construction, yielded a monthly rent exceeding five rupees;
        or

        (b) if he has a building or is in possession of any land      E
        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, either as owner
        or as tenant, on which he could erect a building];
                                                                   F
        Explanation Ill. - Where any Kudikidappukaran secures
        any mortgage with possession of the land in which the
        Kudikidappu is situate, his Kudikidappu right shall revive
        on the redemption of the mortgage, provided that he has
        at the time of redemption no other homestead or any land
        exceeding three cents in any city or major municipality or G
        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.

       · Explanation IV. - Where a mortgagee with possession          H
    320      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 5 S.C.R.
                                                                         ..
A         erects for his residence a homestead, or resides in a hut
          already in existence, on the land to which the mortgage
          relates, he shall, notwithstanding the redemption of the
          mortgage, be deemed to be a Kudikidappukaran in
          respect of such homestead or hut, provided that at the time
B         of the redemption-

          (a) he has no other Kudikidappu or residential building
          belonging to him, or any land exceeding three cents in any
          city or major municipality or five cents in any other
          municipality or ten cents in any panchayat area or
c         township, in possession either as owner or as tenant, on
          which he could erect a homestead; and

          (b) his annual income does not exceed two thousand
          rupees.
D
          Explanation V. - Where a Kudikidappukaran transfers his
          right in the Kudikidappu to another person, such person
          shall be deemed to be a Kudikidappukaran, if-

          (a) he has no other homestead or any land in possession,
E         either as owner or as tenant, on which he could erect a
          homestead; and

          (b) his annual income does not exceed two thousand
          rupees,
F
          Explanation VI. - For the purposes of this clause, a
          person occupying any hut belonging to the owner of a
          plantation and situate in the plantation shall not be deemed
          to be a Kudikidappukaran if such person was permitted
          to occupy that hut in connection with his employment in the
G         plantation, unless

          (a) he was, immediately before the commencement of this
          Act, entitled to the rights of a Kudikidappukaran or the
          holder of a protected ulkudi or Kudikidappu under any law
H         then in force; or
o:   MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 321
       [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
       (b) he would have been entitled to the rights of a              A
       Kudikidappukaran if the area in which that hut is situate
       had not been converted into a plantation subsequent to his
       occupation of that hut.

       [Explanation VII. - For the removal of doubts it is hereby
                                                                       8
       declared that a person occupying a homestead or hut
       situate on a land held or owned by the Government of
       Kerala or the Government of any other State in India or the
       Government of India shall not be deemed to be a
       Kudikidappukaran];
                                                                       c
       [79A.      Customary         and     other.      rights   of
       Kudikidappukaran. - (1) Notwithstanding anything
       contained in any law, or in any contract, or in any judgment,
       decree or order of court, the Kudikidappukaran shall be
       entitled to all rights accrued to him by custom, usage or       D
       agreement and which he was enjoying immediately before
       the commencement of this Act.

       (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, or in any
       judgment, decree or order of court, but without prejudice       E
       to any rights to which a Kudikidappukaran may be entitled
       under any other law for the time being in force or under
       any custom, usage or contract a Kudikidappukaran shall
       in respect of his Kudikidappu have all the rights and
       privileges conferred on the owner of a land under the Indian
       Easements Act, 1882, as if the Kudikidappukaran were            F
       the owner of his Kudikidappu from the date on which the
        hut or homestead, as the case may be, was occupied or
       erected.

       (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, or in any G
       judgment, decree or order of court, or in any contract it shall
       not be necessary to obtain the consent of the owner or
       occupier or both of the land in which a Kudikidappu is
       situate, to lay down or place any electric supply line or other
       work on, over or under such land for the purpose of,supply H
    322      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A         of electrical energy to the Kudikidappu for domestic
          consumption and use.

          (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, or in any
          judgment, decree or order of court, or in any contract, it
B         shall not be necessary to obtain the consent of the owner
          or occupier or both of the land in which a kudikidappu is
          situate to lay down any pipe or to carry out any other work
          on, over or under such land for the purpose of supply of
          water to the Kudikidappu for domestic consumption and
           use.
c
          Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, enjoyment
          of any benefit or concession for a continuous period of
          three years immediately preceding the commencement of
          this Act shall be deemed to be enjoyment of a right
D         accrued to the Kudikidappukaran by custom, usage or
          agreement.]

          80. Register of Kudikidappukars. - (1) The Government
          shall cause a register of Kudikidappukars [within the limits
E         of each local authority to be prepared and maintained.]

          (2) The register shall show-

          (a) the description of land in which the Kudikidappu is
          situate;
F
          (b) the location of the Kudikidappu and its extent;

          (c) the name of the landowner and of the person in
          possession of the land in which the Kudikidappu is situate;

G         (d) the name and address of the Kudikidappukaran; [xxxx]

          [(dd) the rights referred to in section 79A; and

          (e) such other particulars as may be prescribed.

H         [3) Subject to such rules as may be made by the
MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 323
  [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
  Covernment in this behalf, the local authority shill prepare    A
  a register of Kudikidappukars within its jurisdiction.

  (4) The register shall be maintained by the local authority
  in such manner as may be prescribed.

  (5) Any person aggrieved by the registration of a               B
  Kudikidappukaran under sub-section (3) or the refusal to
  register a person claiming to be a Kudikidappukaran may,
  within ninety days from the date of registration or refusal,
  as the case may be, appeal-
                                                                  c
  (a) to the Revenue Divisional Officer having jurisdiction,
  where the decision appealed against is that of a municipal
  corporation or a municipal council;

  (b) to the Tahsildar having jurisdiction, in other cases.
                                                                  D
  (6) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (5), the
  Revenue Divisional Officer or the Tahsildar, as the case
  may be, may call for the record of any proceeding which
  has been taken by the local authority under this section and
  may make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made          E
     .
  and may pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit:

  Provided that no order prejudicial to any person shall be
  passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard.

  (7) For the purposes of this section, "local authority" shall   F
  not include a cantonment board.]

  [BOA. Right of Kudikidappukaran to purchase his
  Kudikidappu. - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the
  contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, a G
  Kudikidappukaran shall, subject to the provisions of this
  section, have the right to purchase the Kudikidappu
  occupied by hirn and lands adjoining thereto.

   (2) xxx xxx
                                                                  H
    324      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A         (3) The extent of land which the Kudikidappukaran is
          entitled to purchase under this section shall be three cents
          in city or major municipality or five cents in any other
          municipality or ten cents in a panchayat area Of township:
          xxxxxx
B
          (4) xxx xxx

          (5) xxx xxx

          (6) xxx xxx
c         (7) xxx xxx

          (8) xxx xxx

          (9) xxx xxx
D
          (10) xxx xxx

          (11) xxx xxx

          (12) xxx xxx
E
          808. Procedure for purchase by Kudikidappukaran.
          - (1) A Kudikidappukaran entitled under section 80A to
          purchase the Kudikidappu occupied by him and lands
          adjoining thereto may apply to the Land Tribunal for such
          purchase.
F
          (2) An application under sub-section (1) shall be in such
          form and shall contain such particulars as may be
          prescribed.

G         (3) The Land Tribunal shall, after giving notice to the
          Kudikidappukars in the land in which the Kudikidappu is
          situate and other persons interested in the land and after
          such enquiry as may be prescribed, pass such orders on
          the application as it thinks fit:,
H         Provided that where an application under sub-section (1)
MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 325
  [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)
  of section 77 in respect of the Kudikidappu is pending, the       A
  Land Tribunal shall not pass any order under this sub-
  section before the disposal of that application.

  (4) An order under sub-section (3) allowing an application
  shall specify.-                                                   B

  (i) the extent of land which the Kudikidappukaran is entitled
  to purchase;

  (ii) the purchase price payable in respect of the land
  allowed to be purchased t>y the Kudikidappukaran;                 C

  (iii) the amounts due to the person in possession of the
  land in which the Kudikidappu is situate and other persons
  interested in the land;

  (iv) the value of encumbrances subsisting or claims for           D
  maintenance or alimony charged on the land allowed to be
  purchased by the Kudikidappukaran;

  (v) the amount payable to the holder of the encumbrance
  or the person entitled to the maintenance or alimony and          E
  the order of priority in which such amount is payable;

  (vi) such other particulars as may be prescribed .

  . (5) If the person in possessicn of the land in which
    Kudikidappu is situate or the landowner or the                  F
    intermediary, if any, of the land is liable to pay any amount
    to the Kudikidappukaran towards the price of the
    homestead or the cost of shifting the Kudikidappu, the
    Land Tribunal shall in passing orders on the application for
    purchase set off such amount against the purchase price         G
    payable to such person.

 · (6) Where the right, title and interest of the person in
   possession of the land in which the Kudikidappu is situate
   or any other person interested in the land form part of the      H
   security for any encumbrance or charge for maintenance
    326      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A       or alimony, the Land Tribunal shall, for the purpose of
      · determining the value of the encumbrance or the charge
        for the maintenance or alimony relating to the portion in
        respect of which purchase is allowed, apportion the entire
        encumbrance or charge for the maintenance or alimony
B       between the land in which the Kudikidappu is situate and
        the portion allowed to be purchased in proportion to the
        values of the two portions.

          (7) Where the person in possession of the land in which
          the Kudikidappu is situate is a tenant, the purchase price
c         payable in respect of the land to be purchased shall be
          apportioned among. the landowner, the intermediaries, if
          any, and the tenant in possession of the land in proportion
          to the profits derivable by them from the holding.

D         Explanation. - "Profits derivable from the land" shall be
          deemed to be equal to,-

          (i) in the case of a landowner, the rent which he was entitled
          to get from the tenant holding immediately under him;
E         (ii) in the case of an intermediary, the difference between
          the rent which he was entitled to get from his tenant and
          the rent for which he was liable to his landlord; and

          (iii) in the case of the tenant in possession, the difference
F         between the net income and the rent payable by him; and
          the rent payable by such tenant and the intermediary for
          the purposes of this Explanation shall be as calculated
          under the provisions of this Act.

          102 - Appeal to appellate authority. - (1) The
G
          Government or any person aggrieved by any order of the
          Land Tribunal under sub-section (2) of section 12, sub-
          section (3) of section 13A, section 22, section 23, sub-
          section (2) of section 26 (where the amount of arrears of
          rent claimed exceeds five hundred rupees), section 31,
H
MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI                  327.
  [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
  section 47, sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of section 48,   A
  sub-section (3) of section 49, sub~section (6) of section 52,
  section 57, sub-section (5) of section 66, section 72F,
  section 73, sub-section (2) of section 77, se~tion 80B, sub-
  section {4) of section 90, section 106 or section 106A may
  appeal against such order within such time as may be            B
  prescribed to the appellate authority.

  (2) ............... .

  (3) ............... .
                                                                  c
  (4) ............... .

  103 - Revision by High Court (1) Any person aggrieved.
  by-

  (i) any final order passed in an appeal against the order       D
  of the Land Tribunal or;

  (ii) xxx xxx

  (iii) xxx xxx
                                                                  E
  may, within such time as may be prescribed, prefer a
  petition to the High Court against the order on the ground
  that the [appellate authority or the Land Board, or the Taluk
  Land Board], as the case may be, has either decided
  erroneously, or failed to decide, any question of law.          F
  (1A) .............. .

  (1B) ............. ..

  (2) The High Court may, after giving an opportunity to the      G
  parties to be heard, pass such orders as it deems fit and
  the orders of the appellate authority or the Land Board, 1or
  the Taluk Land Board as the case may be, shall, wherever
  necessary, be modified accordingly.
                                                                  H
    328      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A         (3) xxxxxx

          (4) The power of the High Court under this section may
          be exercised by a Bench consisting of a Single Judge of
          the High Court.
B         125 - Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts. - (1) No Civil
          Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with
          any question or to determine any matter which is by or
          under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with
          or to be determined by the Land Tribunal or the appellate
c         authority or the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board or
          the Government or an officer of the Government:

          Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall
          apply to proceedings pending in any court at the
          commencement of the Kerala land Reforms Amendment
D
          Act, 1969.

          (2) No order of the Land Tribunal or the appellate authority
          or the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board or the
          Government or an officer of the Government made under
E         this Act shall be questioned in any civil court, except as
          provided in this Act.

          (3) If in any suit or other proceedings any question
          regarding rights of a tenant or of a Kudikidappukaran
F         (including a question as to whether a person is a tenant
          or a Kudikidappukaran) arises, the civil court shall stay the
          suit or other proceeding and refer such question to the
          Land Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the
          land or part thereof is situate together with the relevant
          records for the decision of that question only.
G
          (4) The Land Tribunal shall decide the question referred
          to it under subsection (3) and return the records together
          with its decision to the civil court.

H         (5) The civil court shall then proceed to decide the suit or
MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 329
  [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
    other proceedings accepting the decisiort of the Land              A
    Tribunal on the question referred to it.

    (6) The decision of the Land Tribunal on the question
    referred to it shall, for the purposes of appeal, be deemed
    to be part of the finding of the civil court.
                                                                       B
    (7) No civil court shall have power to grant injunction in any
    suit or other proceedings referred to in sub-section (3)
    restraining any person from entering into or occupying or
    cultivating any land or Kudikidappu or to appoint a receiver
    for any property in respect of which a question referred to C
    in that sub-section has arisen, till such question is decided
    by the Land Tribunal, and any such injunction granted or
    appointment made before the commencement of the
    Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, or before
    such question has arisen, shall stand cancelled.]              D

    [(8) In this section, "civil court" shall include a Rent Control
    Court as defined in the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent
    Control) Act, 1965.]"

      11. When we refer to Section 2(25) which defines E
Kudikidappukaran, the main ingredients to be noted are that
to fall within the said definition a person has to establish that
he had neither a homestead nor any land existing in extent of
three cents in any city or major municipality or five cents in any
other municipality or ten cents in any Panchayat area or F
township either as an owner or as a tenant at which he could
erect a homestead. Such person should have been permitted
with or without an obligation to pay rent. The possession should
be lawful possession of any land for the purpose of erecting a
homestead. Such a person in lawful possession should have G
erected his own hut or homestead which should have also been
permitted by the owner of the land with whatever easementary
rights attached thereto. Explanation II (a) and II (b) of Section
2(25) define what a hut and homestead mean respectively. The
Explanation llA prescribes a cut off date, namely, 16.8.1968 H
    330     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                , (2013) 5 S.C.R.


A   and those persons who were in occupation of any land and
    dwelling house thereon constructed on his own or by any of his
    predecessors-in-interest or even belonging to any other
    person, as deemed Kudikidappukaran, subject to certain
    exceptions. Explanation VII of Section 2(25) totally prohibits
B   anyone to claim status as Kudikidappukaran even if such a
    person is occupying a homestead or hut situate in a land which
    is held or owned by the Government of Kerala or the
    Government of any other State in India or the Government of
    India itself.
c         12. Keeping the above relevant part of definition of
    Kudikidappukaran under Section 2(25) of the Act, when we
    examine Section 79A which starts with a non-obstante clause
    and provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law
    or contract or judgment or decree or order of the Court, the
D   person falling within description of Kudikidappukaran would be
    entitled to all rights accrued to him by custom, usage or
    agreement which he was enjoying immediately before the
    commencement of the Act, namely, 1.4.1964 by which Sections
    2 to 71, 73 to 82, 84, 99 to 108 and 110 to 132 were brought
E   into force after receiving the assent of the President on
    31.12.1963 which was published in Kerala Government Gazette
    Extraordinary No.7 dated 14.1.1964. In order to avail the
    benefits which are provided under Section 79A, the Act
    prescribes the mode by which the status of a person who
F   claims himself to be a Kudikidappukaran to be entered as such
    in a register prescribed under the Act. The procedure for getting
    such a registration has been set out in Section 80 of the Act.
    While under sub-Section (1) of Section 80 the Government has
    been ordained to prepare and maintain a register by the local
G   authority wherever such land situate, under sub-Section (2) of
    Section 80 the details as regards the description of the land,
    the location, the name of land owner and the person in
    possession, the name and address of Kudikidappukaran, the
    nature of rights available to such Kudikidappukaran as
H   prescribed under Section 79A and such other relevant
  MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI                     331
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED 18RAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
  particulars are to be noted in the said register as prescribed A
  under Section 80 (2) of the Act. Sub-Section (3) and (4) of
  Section 80 enjoin upon the local authority to prepare a register
  of Kudikidappukars within its jurisdiction and continue to
  maintain in the manner prescribed therein. Sub-section (5) of
  Section 80 is more relevant for our purpose which specifically 8
  states that in the event of the local authority refusing to register
· a person claiming to be a Kudikidappukaran as prescribed
  under sub-Section (3) of Section 80, such a person would be
  entitled to file an appeal within 90 days from the date of such
  refusal, to the Revenue Divisional Officer having jurisdiction     c
  where the decision is that of an authority of Municipal
  Corporation or a Municipal Council or to the Tahsildar in all
  other cases. The appellate authority has been empowered
  under sub-Section (6) of Section 80 to call for the record of any
  proceeding where a decision has been taken by the local
                                                                       D
  authority and after holding such enquiry pass orders in the
  appeal. The proviso to sub-Section (6) of Section 80
  specifically provides for an opportunity of personal hearing to
  the concerned appellant(s). Thereafter in the event of the
  registration of a person's claim having fructified in the
  prescribed register as a Kudikidappukaran, such person would . E
  gain a right to seek for purchase of Kudikidappu rights under
  Section BOA of the Act. An application has to be preferred by
  a registered Kudikidappukaran which is to be decided by the
  land Tribunal after giving an opportunity of hearing to a person
  interested in the land and after holding an enquiry. Under sub- F
  section (4) of Section 808, the details to be specified in any
  order to be passed under sub-Section (3) of Section 808 has
  been prescribed.

      13. Anyone aggrieved by the order passed under Section         G
 808 has got a right of appeal under Section 102 of the Act
 within the prescribed time limit. Against any such order in
 appeal a further right of revision is provided under Section
 103(1) (i) to the High Court wherever the decision of land
                                                                      H


         •
    332     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A   Tribunal is erroneous or which failed to decide any question of
    law.

         14. Section 125 stands apart from the above provisions
  which creates a bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court to settle, decide
B or deal with any question or to determine any matter which is
  by or under the 1963 Act required to be settled, decided or
  dealt with or to be determined by the Land Tribunal or the
  Appellate Authority or the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board
  or the Government or an officer of the Government. Further the
  proviso to Section (1) to Section 125 excludes such a bar of
C civil Court jurisdiction in respect of proceedings pending in any
  Court at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms
  Amendment Act, 1969. Even while creating such a bar of
  jurisdiction of civil Courts, the law makers wanted to ensure that
  no person is allowed to abuse or misuse the benefits conferred
D under 1963 Act while claiming rights as a Kudikidappukaran
  and with that laudable object engraved sub-Section (3) in
  Section 125 itself by which any Civil Court or authority before
  whom any other proceedings regarding rights of a tenant or of
  a Kudikidappukaran arise for consideration, enjoins upon such
E civil Court or other authority to stay the proceedings temporarily
   and also simultaneously make a reference to the Land Tribunal
   having jurisdiction over the area in which the land or part thereof
   is situate along with the relevant records for the decision of the
   question as to whether a person is a tenant or a
F Kudikidappukaran. Sub-Section (8) of Section 125 which was
   introduced in the statute book w.e.f. 2.11.1972 made it clear
   that civil Court would include a Rent Control Court as defined
   in the 1965 Act. Sub -section (4) enjoins upon the Land Tribunal
   to decide the question referred to it under sub-Section (3) and
G return the records together with his decision back to the Civil
   Court/Rent Control Court. Under sub-Section(5) of Section 125
   the civil Court/Rent Control Court should then proceed to decide
   the suit or other proceedings by accepting the decision of the
   Land Tribunal on the question referred to it. Sub-Section (6) of
H Section 125 makes the position clear that while the decision
 MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 333
   [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
of the Land Tribunal on the question referred to it should be A
accepted by the concerned Civil Court/Rent Control Court which
refers the question, the further determination as to the
correctness or otherwise of such decision by the Land Tribunal
can be examined in the channel of appeal provided in the
respective jurisdictional Appellate Court of the Civil Court/Rent B
Control Court. In other words, while under Section 125(3).
having regard to the bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court/Rent
Control Court to decide the question about the status of a
Kudikidappukaran or a tenant which can be exclusively decided
only by the land Tribunal, after such a decision is rendered c
pursuant to a reference made to it and the ultimate decision of
the Civil Court/Rent Control Court is taken up by way of an
appeal to the Appellate Court/appellate authority of a Civil Court
or Rent Control Court while examining the merits of the
decision of the concerned Civil Court or the original authority
                                                                   0
on the question of eviction can also examine the correctness
of the decision rendered by the Land Tribunal as regards the
status as a Kudikidappukaran.

     15. Having analysed the scheme of the 1963 Act based
on the above provisions, we are able to discern the scheme of E
the Act vis-a-vis the civil court jurisdiction including the Rent
Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority under
the provisions of the 1965 Act. Keeping the above scheme of
the Act, in relation to the issue which has come up for
consideration in these appeals, in our mind, when we examine F
the controversies raised in these appeals as noted by us earlier,
when the respondent herein filed application for eviction before
the Rent Control Court in RCP No.140/1985, since on behalf
of the appellant(s). an objection was raised to the effect that
the building was a hut and that the respondent in the RCP G
claimed himself to be a Kudikidappukaran entitled to get
Kudikidappu right over the scheduled building and property, the
Rent Control Court rightly referred the said issue, namely,
whether the appellants' predecessor in interest was entitled to
claim the status of Kudikidappukaran or merely a tenant to be H
    334     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A   decided by the Land Tribunal by way of Reference in RC No.16/
    89. As far as the eviction sought for by the respondent was on
    the ground of default in payment of rent, demolition and
    reconstruction, as well as for bonafide need for own occupation,
    the Rent Control Authority after making an initial reference in
B   RC No.16/89 to the Land Tribunal and after receipt of the
    decision of the land Tribunal in its order dated 19.2.1991 in RC
    No.16/89 held that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant(s)
    was not a Kudikidappukaran over the petition scheduled
    building, accepted the said decision and thereafter proceeded
c   to decide whether the ground of eviction as sought for by the
    respondent landlord was made out. By its order dated
    02.7.1991 in RCP 140/85, the Rent Control Authority concluded
    that there was a landlord-tenant relationship between the
    respondent and the appellant(s), and that there was a sub-lease
    of the tenanted building, that there was bonafide need for
0
    demolition and re-construction as well as for own-occupation
    and consequently directed eviction of the appellant(s) to enable
    the respondent to go in for re-construction and occupation of
    the same on their own.

E      16. On behalf of the appellant(s), an appeal was preferred
  as against the decision of the Rent Control Authority dated
  02.7.1991 by way of an appeal before the Rent Control
  Appellate Authority in RCA No.133/91. Before the Appellate
  Authority also, the question as to the decision of the Land
F Tribunal, namely, whether the appellant(s) were entitled for
  status of Kudikidappukaran as well as the grounds of eviction
  were subject matter of consideration. The Appellate Authority
  under the Rent Control Act ultimately by its order dated
  28.10.95 confirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller by
G dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant(s). Be that as
  it may, as pointed out earlier on behalf of the appellant(s), an
  application was independently filed in OA 78/88 by invoking
  Section 80B of the 1963 Act before the Land Tribunal
  apparently, on the assumption that the appellants' status as a
  Kudikidappukaran existed. The said application was decided
H
MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 335
  [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
by the learned Tribunal in a detailed order passed on 19.2.1991 A
which incidentally was the date on which RC No.16/89 was also
decided by the Land Tribunal which decision was forwarded
to the Rent Control Court for passing further orders in the
eviction proceedings.
                                                                   B
     17. It is relevant to. note that the application preferred on
behalf of the appellant(s) under Section 808 of the 1963 Act
in· OA 78/88 was rejected by the Land Tribunal,
Thiruvananthapuram and some of the relevant findings were as
under:-
                                                                         c
           "Ext.A1 (Property tax assessment) when examined
    it is found that Appukuttan Nair, the applicant is an
    occupant in a building TC No.6/482 and the owner of the
    building is B. Chembakakutty Amma. The revised annual
    tax of the said building is arrived at Rs.22.68 by calculating       D
    the annual rent of the building as Rs.168/- i.e. monthly rent
    for the year 1965-66 is Rs.14/-. A building for which a
    monthly rent of Rs.14/- is assessed by the assessing
    authority in the year 1965-66 will not in any account be a
    hut or a kudil. It must be a full fledged house. It is not prudent   E
    to believe that it is a hut. This building assessment leads
    to believe that the contention of the respondents are true
    and correct. The wife and witness of the applicant in the
    cross examination has stated that Kamalamma is in
    possession of a separate ration card and also she has                F
    admitted that the land lord has filed BRC for eviction of the
    tenants from the schedule building. The Revenue Inspector
    has also stated that Kamalamma who is the sister of the
    applicant also possess separate ration card in the address
    of the same building which shows that there are at least             G
    two sets of occupants in one building. Therefore it is
    reasonable to believe that the applicant is occupied only
    a portion of a big building occupation in a part of a building
    cannot be construed as Kudikidappu as decided in cases
    reported in 1968 KLT 888 and 1974 KLT 738. Another
                                                                         H
    336       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A         point to be noted is the tax assessment of the building
          which brought out in Ext.A 1. According to this the monthly
          rent of the building is reckoned as Rs.14/-. This also is
          enough to believe that the schedule building is not a kudil.
          There is nothing in evidence to show that the applicant
B         satisfy the requirements under explanation II of Section
          2(25) of the K.L.R. Act. Moreover it has been proved that
          the applicant is residing in a part of the building wherein
          some other occupants are also residing. On the above
          ground I enter into finding that the applicant is not entitled
c         to the fixity of Kudikidappu in the property comprising in
          Sy.No.1536A of Vanchiyoor village. In the result in exercise
          of powers conferred upon me under section 808(3) I do
          hereby dismiss the original application."

         18. On behalf of the appellant(s), a separate appeal was
D   preferred before the Appellate Authority (LR) in AA 37/91 as
    against the decision dated 19.2.1991 in OA 78/88. The said
    Appellate Authority concluded as under in paras 9 and 15.

          "9) The Revenue Inspector filed his report. He has reported
E         that it is a thatched hut. The cost at the time of construction
          of the hut would be Rs.400/-. The rent which would have
          fetched is Rs.4/- per month. The respondents have no
          case that it is a full fledged house. They have not taken
          any step for the examination of the Revenue Inspector. No
F         commission was taken out to disprove the report filed by
          the Revenue Inspector. No oral evidence was adduced by
          the respondents. Ext.A 1 is the copy of the extract of the
          assessment register in respect of the said hut for the
          period 1965-66. The rental value which was existing at the
          time of assessment was Rs.60/-. The monthly rent would
G
          have been Rs.5/- which is within the ambit of the KLR Act.
          In the absence of any evidence from the side of the
          respondents, I can only accept the reports filed by the
          Revenue Inspector and accordingly hold that it is a hut and
          not a full fledged house.
H
  MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 337
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
      15) From the forgoing discussion I can only hold that the         A
      dwelling house is a hut and not a full fledged house. The
      findings of the LT that it is a full fledged house and the
      Kudikidappu is claimed over a part of the building is
      erroneous and unsustainable. The appellant is entitled to
      fixity of Kudikidappu. The appeal is liable to be allowed."       B

         19. After so holding, the Appellate Authority (LR) set aside
   the order dated 19.2.1991 passed in OA 78/88 by the Land
   Tribunal in the Section BOB application. It is relevant to point
   out the serious discrepancy which were explicit in the order of      C
   the Appellate Authority dated 13.11.1995 in AA 37/91. In the
   first place, as rightly held by the Division Bench of the High
   Court when a Reference was made under Section 125 (3) of
   the 1963 Act by the Rent Control Authority calling for a decision
   as to the status of the appellant(s) as a tenant or
   Kudikidappukaran for the purpose of deciding the eviction            D
   proceedings, and in that Reference the Land Tribunal returned
   a finding that the appellant(s) was not a Kudikidappukaran but
   was only a tenant occupying a building belonging to the
   respondent and not a hut or homestead, thereafter the only
   scope to challenge the said conclusion of the Land Tribunal was      E
   only by way of an appeal under the provisions of 1965 Act by
   virtue of the specific stipulations contained in Section 125(6)
   of the 1963 Act. When we consider the scope and content of
.· Section 125 on the whole, we are convinced that the conclusion
   arrived at by the Division Bench could have been the only            F
   conclusion and we do not find any good grounds to differ from
   the same.

      20. Consequently, when a decision was reached by the
 Land Tribunal in a Reference made to it under Section 125 (3)          G
 of the 1963 Act, having regard to the scheme of the Act as from
 the definition of Kudikidappukaran under Section 2(25), the
 benefits that would accrue to a Kudikidappukaran as provided
 under Section 79A, the procedure prescribed under Section 80
 by which a person claiming the rights of Kudikidappukaran has
                                                                        H
    338     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A to ensure the recognition of such status as Kudikidappukaran
   in a proceeding before the concerned local authority and get
   his name registered in the prescribed register to be prepared
   by the local authority and to be maintained for that purpose, we
   fail to see how any person claiming such status as
B Kudikidappukaran can seek for such status to be recognized
  ·by resorting to any other proceedings under the other
   provisions of the 1963 Act. To put it differently, it has to be held
   that in order for a person to claim the status of
   Kudikidappukaran for the purpose of availing the benefits
c available as a Kudikidappukaran as spelt out under Section
   79A of the 1963 Act, he has to. ensure that the status claimed
   by him as Kudikidappukaran is in the first instance accepted
   by the local authority in appropriate proceedings under Section
   80 of the Act and more importantly in proof for such acceptance
   his name is entered as Kudikidappukaran in the register
0
   prepared and maintained for that purpose by the local authority.
   If any such person is not able to get such recognition in the first
   instance before the local authority, the statute prescribes a
   remedy of appeal under Section 80(5) before appropriate
E appellate authority. Only after establishing such a right in the
   prescribed manner as provided under Section 80 of the Act,
   there would be any scope for anyone to claim validly that he is
   entitled for all the benefits that would flow from his status as a
   Kudikidappukaran. In other words, it can be validly stated that
   the claim of a status of a Kudikidappukaran can be determined
F only under Section 80 of the Act.

      21. In contradistinction to Section 80, what is provided
  under Sections 80A or 808 were the consequential benefits
  such as the right to purchase the Kudikidappu and the
G procedure to be followed for effecting the purchase by
  approaching the concerned authorities and thereby ascertain
  his ownership rights after such purpose. By no stretch of
  imagination, the right to purchase orovided under Section 80A
  and the procedure prescribed for purchase of such right under
H Section 808 can be invoked, by a person whose status as
 MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 339
   [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
 Kudikidappukaran was yet to be ascertained earlier. The A
 approach made by the appellant(s) by invoking Section 808
.of the Act in order to assert his right as Kudikidappukaran even
 without getting his status ascertained in the appropriate
 proceedings under Section 80 of the Act was wholly invalid and
 was rightly rejected by the original authority in its order dated B
 19.2.1991 in OA 78/88. Unfortunately, the Appellate Authority
 that decided the appeal as against the said order in AA 37/91
 failed to understand the scope, power and jurisdiction of
 Appellate power under Section 102 of the Act as against the
 order passed under Section 808 of the 1963 Act which             c
 unfortunately resulted in the passing of the order dated
 13.11.1995 in AA 37/91.

     22. It has to be stated in uncontroverted terms that the said
order of the Appellate Authority (LR) Attingal, dated 13.11.1995
in AA 37/91 was, therefore, wholly without any jurisdictiqn and D
was not in tune with the powers vested with the said Appellate
Authority under Section 102 of the 1963 Act while examining
the order passed under Section 808 of the Act. It has to be
stated that the said order was far in excess of the jurisdiction
vested in the said authority and, therefore, the said order was E
rightly set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court.

     23. Once, we steer clear of the correctness of the said
·order dated 13.11.1995 in AA 37/91, the only other aspect to
 be examined is the correctness of the order passed by the Rent F
 Control Authority in RCP No.140/85 dated 2.7.1991 on the
 merits of ground of eviction, namely, the alleged default in
 payment of rent, necessity for demolition and re-construction
 and the claim for own-occupation. In those aspects, as the
 conclusion was arrived at by the Rent Control Court based on G
 a detailed consideration of the merits which are mainly based
 on facts and in the absence of- any legal error in the said
 conclusion arrived at by the Rent Control Authority as well as
 the Rent Control Appellate Authority in the decision dated
 28.10.1995 passed in RCA No.133/91, there is no scope to
                                                                  H
     340      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 5 S.C.R.


'A   find fault with the ultimate decision of the Division Bench of the
     High Court in dismissing the revision preferred by the
     appellant(s). Having bestowed our detailed consideration on
     the impugned judgment, we hold that the decision of the
     Division Bench in allowing the revision preferred by the
B    respondent as against the order of the appellate authority (LR)
     dated 13.11.1995 in AA 37/91 was also justified. These
     appeals, therefore, fail and the same are dismissed.

     B.B.B.                                      Appeals dismissed.