Judgment :- 1. This revision is directed against an order of the learned Munsiff of Ernakulam refusing to stay the trial of a suit under the provisions of the Kerala stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1957 (Act I of 1957). The suit in question is to recover the site of a shed (or hut) which the defendant uses as a workshop for his business, to wit, carpentry, together with damages for use and occupation thereof. The suit was instituted in 1955, but as the trial was proceeding Act I of 1957 was enacted and the defendant made an application before the trial court to the effect that under s.5 of the said Act the suit had to be stayed. s.5 provides: "5. stay of proceedings against Kudikidappukars.- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, with effect on and from the commencement of this Act, no suit or other proceedings for eviction of a Kudikidappukaran from his Kudiyiruppu or for the recovery of arrears of rent in respect of, or for damages for use and occupation of, the Kudiyiruppu from him, shall lie in any Court and all suits, proceedings in execution of decrees or orders or other proceedings pending in the Courts at such commencement for such eviction or recovery of arrears of such rent or damages shall be stayed." 2. The plaintiff opposed the application on the ground that the defendant was not a Kudikidappukaran and that the site in question did not constitute a Kudiyiruppu within the meaning of the Act. The learned Munsiff accepted this contention, held that a but or shed used for commercial purposes did not fall within the purview of the Act and accordingly dismissed the defendant's application. Hence this revision. 3. The question for consideration is whether the suit relates to a Kudiyiruppu and whether the defendant is a Kudikidappukaran within the meaning of the Kerala stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1957. s.2, sub-section (3) defines a Kudikidappukaran and sub section (4) defines a Kudiyiruppu. These definitions refer to the definitions of the same terms of the Travancore-Cochin Prevention of Eviction of Kudikidappukars Act, 1955 (Act XIII of 1955) and are as follows: section 2 (3). s.2, sub-section (3) defines a Kudikidappukaran and sub section (4) defines a Kudiyiruppu. These definitions refer to the definitions of the same terms of the Travancore-Cochin Prevention of Eviction of Kudikidappukars Act, 1955 (Act XIII of 1955) and are as follows: section 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;" section 2 (4) " "Kudiyiruppu" means a Kudiyiruppu as defined in the Travancore-Cochin Prevention of Eviction of Kudikidappukars Act, 1935, and includes a but occupied by the Kudikidappukaran;" 4. Act XIII of 1955 defines these terms in s.2 (c) thereof and that sub-section reads:- "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; and "Kudiyiruppu" means the site so given together with the house, but or shed thereon which is used as a place of residence by the Kudikidappukaran with the permission of the owner;" 5. section 2, sub-section (2) of Act I of 1957 states what a "hut" means and what is stated there is: " "hut" means any building which is constructed principally of wood, mud, leaves, grass on thatch;" 6. It is common ground that under Act XIII of 1955 the site in question was no Kudiyiruppu and that the defendant was not a Kudikidappukaran within the meaning of that Act. He has homestead or land of his own and the but or shed in question is not used as a place of residence. These disentitled him to the status of a Kudikidappukaran under the earlier Act. 7. He has homestead or land of his own and the but or shed in question is not used as a place of residence. These disentitled him to the status of a Kudikidappukaran under the earlier Act. 7. It was however contended before us that Act I of 1957 gives an extended meaning to the term when it proceeds to state "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 terms Kudikidappukaran and Kudiyiruppu as defined in the later Act have no doubt extended or widened meanings than those terms conveyed under the earlier Act, but we cannot interpret the clauses widening the scope of those terms as if they were self-contained clauses and construe them as if the definitions in the earlier Act need not be taken into account at all. It is the conjunction 'and' that occurs between the two parts of the definition of either term. To accept the petitioner's argument would mean that a person owning extensive lands or several mansions, putting up a but or shed in neighbouring land-owner's property with the latter's permission, say, for the purpose of keeping his car or rickshaw, will be a Kudikidappukaran with respect to that land. Nothing could be more revolting to our minds than that such a person should be taken to be a Kudikidappukaran. The only extension to the meaning which the later Act contemplates is that the but or shed need not necessarily be one put up by the person occupying another's land. That part of the definition alone can be taken to have been modified by the later Act and not the other requisites of the earlier definition that he should have no homestead or land of his own and that the structure put up should be used as homestead. That part of the definition alone can be taken to have been modified by the later Act and not the other requisites of the earlier definition that he should have no homestead or land of his own and that the structure put up should be used as homestead. It may well be that the Legislature thought that the temporary protection which the Act gave should be given not only to landless persons who have put up homesteads for them on other persons' lands with their permission, but also to the landless who have not the wherewithal to put up their own homesteads, but who have been permitted to live in huts which they themselves did not construct. To construe the extended meaning in any wider sense would, as pointed out earlier, lead to absurd results, besides revolutionising the concept of a Kudiyiruppu or of a Kudikidappukaran. To the extent the new definitions expressly modify the earlier ones, effect has certainly to be given by Courts, but the extension clauses cannot be interpreted so as to nullify the effect of the earlier definitions in other respects also. 8. Emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the meaning given to the term "hut" in the later Act, but it has to be noticed that what s.2 sub-section (2) states is about the composition, or the materials used for the construction of a hut, and not the use to which it is put. The plain meaning of the word but is a small or mean house or a small temporary dwelling or similar structure. That but is a place used for purpose of dwelling is therefore implicit in the term or word itself and that would be clear when the meaning of the term shed is referred to. shed means a structure, often open fronted, for storing or shelter. Both the terms are used in the earlier definition of Kudiyiruppu, but is qualified by the addition of the words "which is used as a place of residence". Nothing can therefore be said to turn on the meaning given to the term but in the later Act which only purports to state of what a but can consist of. 9. Both the terms are used in the earlier definition of Kudiyiruppu, but is qualified by the addition of the words "which is used as a place of residence". Nothing can therefore be said to turn on the meaning given to the term but in the later Act which only purports to state of what a but can consist of. 9. A reading of the Kerala stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1957 as a whole, its title, as also the preamble and specific provisions in the Act, which we shall presently refer to, make it clear beyond doubt that the Act was not intended to protect the artisan or the trader. That is exactly what the lower court has said. It is unnecessary to cite the title or the preamble here, but a reference to some of the provisions in s.3 would be relevant. s.3 relates to the application of the section and it states that it shall not apply to certain categories of lands, holdings, buildings etc. Clause (c) deals with the exemption of "buildings rented out including houses, shops or warehouses and the sites thereof together with gardens or lands appurtenant thereto" and that clause has an explanation added to it which reads:- "For the purpose of this clause a but which is a Kudiyiruppu shall not be deemed to be a building" and clause (d) exempts lands or buildings or both given on lease for industrial or commercial purposes. The explanation to clause (c) shows that the Act contemplates also huts which are not Kudiyiruppus. That would not or could not be the case if the petitioner's interpretation is to be accepted. The petition is therefore without merit and we dismiss it with costs. Dismissed.