Judgment :- 1. This Revision is by the plaintiff against an order of the court below, staying the suit under the provisions of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act I of 1957. 2. According to the plaint averments, the 1st plaintiff had employed the 1st defendant to supervise certain lemon grass cultivation in the plaintiff's property scheduled as items 1 to 4 to the plaint and on terms and conditions embodied in a written agreement filed along with the plaint. One of these terms authorised the 1st defendant to enter on and reside in any portion of the property, should the occasion arise in the course of his work. The 1st defendant and his wife and children who were the defendants 2 to 6, happened accordingly to occupy the but in item 4. The agreement had however been terminated on consent of both parties but the defendants refused to give up the but and further threatened fresh entry into the property. The plaint was accordingly laid for injunction to restrain the encroachment and for eviction of the defendants from the but in item 4. 3. According to the court below the 1st defendant was a 'Kudikidappukaran' as regards the but by virtue of the permission originally granted to him to reside therein, and the suit had therefore to be stayed. 4. Now the definition section says: S. 2 (3) "Kudikidappukaran means a Kudikidappukaran as defined in the Travancore-Cochin Prevention of Eviction of Kudikidappukars Act, 1955, and includes any person in occupation of a but (whether constructed by him or not) in any portion of a land belonging to and in the possession of another and who has been permitted by the latter to occupy that hut, but otherwise has no interest in the land". The definition in the Act of 1955 above referred to says: S. 2 (c) "'Kudikidappukaran' means a person who has no homestead or land of his own to erect a homestead and has been permitted by an owner of land to have the use and occupation of a portion of the land for the purpose of erecting a homestead with or without an obligation to pay rent for the use and occupation of the site so given". 5. 5. It is no doubt true, as the learned counsel for respondent contends that the present definition of Kudikidappukaran is enlarged so as to include a person merely permitted to occupy a but apart from the but serving as his homestead. But the question is whether a permission so to occupy, apart from the circumstances in which it is granted, will suffice e.g., where the permission is given as here as incidental to or as part of an entire contract. The answer, it seems to me should be that the general word 'permitted' should be attributed only a limited meaning, not only from the context of the legislation but also with a view to avoid other mischief. In my opinion the permission my be granted subject to an obligation to pay rent or otherwise as in the associate case involving the homestead aspect but it should as similarly, stand by itself independent of other obligations or to put it colloquially, with no strings attached. For it is difficult to imagine that a person who is allowed to occupy a but for the purpose of working on its owner's behalf in near-by spot could say that he has no more to do into the work but he will continue to hold on to the hut. 6. This limitation of meaning by construction as above will not ordinarily be resorted to. And as observed by the Judicial Committee in Att. Gen for Ontario v. Mercer, (1883) 8 App. Cas. 767, 778. "It is a sound maxim of law that every word (in a statute) ought prima facie to be construed in its primary and natural sense, unless a secondary or more limited-sense is required by the subject or the context". See the extract in Craies on Statute Law at p. 171, 5th Edn. 7. In this case the permission to occupy the but was granted not independently of any considerations but solely to enable the 1st defendant to effectively fulfil his contractual obligation; viz., to supervise the lemon grass cultivation of the plaintiff. He cannot, therefore claim to be a'Kudikidappukaran' within the scope of the Statute. 8. The order of the court below is therefore wrong and is hereby set aside. The court below will take back the suit on the file and proceed with it in due course of law. He cannot, therefore claim to be a'Kudikidappukaran' within the scope of the Statute. 8. The order of the court below is therefore wrong and is hereby set aside. The court below will take back the suit on the file and proceed with it in due course of law. The revision is thus allowed but there will be no order for costs. Allowed.