IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 1349 of 2001() ---------------------- AA.22/1991 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY(LR),THRISSUR O.A.NO.375 OF 1976 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, ANTHIKKAD REVN. PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/LRs. OF RESPONDENT: 1.SARADA, W/O. KARANAYIL BALAN, KARUVANNUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 2.WILSON @ NARENDRAN, S/O. KARANAYIL BALAN, KARUVANNUR. 3.VINAYAN @ VINAYAKUMAR, S/O. KARANAYIL BALAN, KARUVANNUR. BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN SRI.T.VENUGOPALAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/LRs OF APPLICANT: 1.SARASU, W/O. LATE RAJAN, KARIMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ETTUMUNA, KARUVANNUR. 2.SAJEEVAN, S/O.RAJAN, KARIMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ETTUMUNA, KARUVANNUR. 3.RAJEEV, S/O.RAJAN, KARIMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ETTUMUNA, KARUVANNUR. 4.REMA, D/O.RAJAN, W/O. PRAKASAN, CHALUVIL HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA. 5.K.R. ANITHA THANKAPPAN, D/O. RAJAN, W/O. THANKAPPAN, POLLAKKAL HOUSE, KADUPPASSERY, KALLETTUMKARA. 6.STATE OF KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL FOR R1 TO 5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.M.KAMMAPPU FOR R6 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1349 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 O R D E R The legal heirs of the respondent/landlady are the revision petitioners. O.A. No. 375 of 1076 was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent before the Land Tribunal, Anthikkad under Section 80 B of Act 1 of 1964 for purchase of kudikidappu and the adjoining 10 cents of land. It is more or less not in dispute that the house belonging to the landlady was rented out to the applicant by Ext.A1 rent deed dated 15.11.1964 and the rent paid was fixed at Rs.7.50 per month. According to the landlady, the cost of construction of the house was Rs.4,500/- and that the rent obtainable as on the date of letting out the house was Rs.30/- per month. An authorised officer was deputed for the purpose of ascertaining the age and the probable rent of the building at the time of construction. On enquiry, the authorised officer reported that the age of the building was approximately 50 years and the probable cost of construction of the house was Rs.300/-. He did not report regarding the rent payable at the time of construction of the house. The landlady filed C.R.P. NO.1349/2001 2 objection and applied for issuance of a commission. Accordingly, an Advocate Commissioner was deputed for site inspection and to submit a report. The Advocate Commissioner reported that the age of the building was approximately between 40 and 45 years. He also reported that the cost of construction of the building was Rs.576.57 and the rent payable at the time of construction was Rs.2/- per month. 2. The Land Tribunal discussed the evidence adduced by the parties at length and held that there was no reason to discredit Ext.C1 report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner which shows full data of the materials used, measurements, the rates of labour, the total cost of construction and the probable monthly rent which the building would have fetched at the time of construction. Going by the report of the Advocate Commissioner which almost tallies with the report of the authorised officer, I find that the building wherein the applicant resides is a hut as defined under Section 2(25) of Act 1 of 1964. 3. The landlady filed appeal, A.A. No.22 of 1991 before the Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur. The Appellate Authority also considered the oral and documentary evidence at length and concurring with the reasons stated by the Land Tribunal held that there are no reasons C.R.P. NO.1349/2001 3 for interfering with the views taken by the Land Tribunal. The Appellate Authority referred to the report of the authorised officer and that of the Advocate Commissioner, the oral evidence tendered by the parties, the attending circumstances and took the view that the Land Tribunal rightly held that the applicant is a kudikidappukaran as on 1.1.1970. 4. The finding entered by the authorities below that the cost of construction of the building was Rs.576.57 and the rent payable at the time of construction was Rs.2/- per month is a finding based on evidence. No grounds are made out by the revision petitioners to effectively challenge the findings of fact entered by the authorities below. I find that the said findings are not liable to be interfered with in this revision. The Civil Revision Petition is without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P. NO.1349/2001 4 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO. 1349/2001 O R D E R 10th JUNE, 2008