Judgment :- 1. This Second Appeal by the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 348/1957, Munsiff's Court, Parur raises the question whether the appellant can be regarded as a'Kudikidappukaran' in respect of the property in question. He had taken over on a cooly-charth evidenced by Ext. P1 dated 9-3-1950, a building or a but for an annual rent of Rs. 40/-, Rs. 16/- being for purpose of thatching the hut. The perimeter of the building was 20 koles and 8 virals. It is now common ground that the building which was the subject-matter of Ext. P1 transaction had ceased to exist on the date of the suit and that in its place a different building with an increased perimeter of 421/2 koles had been constructed by the appellant. The appellant's case was that the reconstruction was occasioned as a result of the destruction and damage caused to the original structure by the ravages of floods; whereas, the plaintiff-1st Respondent would have it, that the re-construction was a deliberate and a wanton act of trespass on the part of the appellant. On this basis, the suit was laid, originally for the recovery of the building with arrears of rent, and for an injunction against re-construction, but was later amended to include a prayer for recovery of possession of the site after removal of the reconstructed building. The appellant pleaded that he was a 'Kudikidappukaran' and that the suit was not maintainable. Both the courts below have concurred in finding that the reconstructed building was not put up with the consent of the knowledge of the plaintiff or her predecessor (who had granted Ext. P1 coolycharth). On the appellant's plea that he is a'kudikidappukaran' the trial court found that the said right had been forfeited by the wanton destruction of the building by the appellant. It dealt with the matter in the light of the provisions of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act IV of 1961. The lower appellate court found that S.40 (2) of the said Act only permitted a 'kudikidappukaran' to rebuild a homestead erected by him, and, as in this case the homestead belonged to the plaintiff, the appellant had no right to re-build the same. The lower appellate court found that S.40 (2) of the said Act only permitted a 'kudikidappukaran' to rebuild a homestead erected by him, and, as in this case the homestead belonged to the plaintiff, the appellant had no right to re-build the same. It further found that S.40 (2) of the Act permitted re-construction without increasing the plinth area of the building, and as the same had been increased, the appellant was not entitled to claim the rights of a'kudikidappukaran'. The plaintiff was granted a decree for recovery of possession of the site on which the re-constructed building stood, the appellant being given the option of removing the said building within three months, in default of which the plaintiff was allowed to remove the same and recover a sum of Rs. 25/- as expense for its removal. 2. The only plea in this Second Appeal is that the appellant is a'kudikidappukaran' as defined by Act I of 1964 and that the decree passed against him cannot be sustained. 25/- as expense for its removal. 2. The only plea in this Second Appeal is that the appellant is a'kudikidappukaran' as defined by Act I of 1964 and that the decree passed against him cannot be sustained. S.2(25) of Act I/1964 defines 'kudikidappukaran' as follows: "Kudikidappukaran" means a person who has neither a homestead nor any land, either as owner or as tenant in possession, on which he could erect a homestead and (i) who has been permitted with or without an obligation to pay rent by a person in lawful possession of any land to have the use and occupation of a portion of such land for the purpose of erecting a homestead; or (ii) who has been permitted by a person in lawful possession of any land to occupy with or without an obligation to pay rent, a but belonging to such person and situate in the said land, but otherwise has no interest in the land and "kudikidappu" means the land and the homestead of the but so permitted to be erected or occupied together with the easements attached thereto: Provided that a person shall not be deemed to be a kudikidappukaran if the aforesaid permission was granted after the 11th day of April 1957, by a mortgagee in possession or by a tenant from whom the land in which the kudikidappu is situate is liable to be resumed: Provided further that a person shall not be deemed to be a kudikidappukaran if the aforesaid permission was granted in respect of any but not belonging to him and situate (a) in a plantation; or (b) in any area of land which is appurtenant to a mill, factory or workshop, and in connection with the employment of such person in the plantation, mill, factory or workshop, unless 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 then in force. Explanation I For the purposes of this clause, 'hut' means any dwelling house which was constructed at a cost not exceeding four hundred rupees, or could have, at the time of construction, yielded a monthly rent not exceeding four rupees. Explanation I For the purposes of this clause, 'hut' means any dwelling house which was constructed at a cost not exceeding four hundred rupees, or could have, at the time of construction, yielded a monthly rent not exceeding four rupees. Explanation H: Any person who was in occupation of a kudikidappu on the 11th day of April 1957 and who continued to be in such occupation at the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to be in occupation of such kudikidappu with permission as required under this clause. Explanation III. Where any kudikidappukaran secures any mortgage with possession over 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 tints of the redemption neither a homestead nor any land, either as owner or as tenant in possession, on which he could erect a homestead." (It was conceded that the case is governed by the above definition and is unaffected by the amendments made by Act 9 of 1967 and Act 5 of 1969). S.79 of the Act reads: "Right of kudikidappukaran to maintain, repair, etc., homestead or hut. The Kudikidappukaran shall have the right to maintain, repair and reconstruct with the same or different materials, but without increasing the plinth area, the but belonging to the person who permitted occupation by the kudikidappukaran, or the homestead, at his own cost." And S.75 of the Act bars eviction of a 'kudikidappukaran' except on stated grounds. Even assuming the above sections are available to the appellant in the instant case, to the extent to which the re-construction exceeded the plinth area of the original structure, the decree granted by the courts below might well have to be sustained. But is the appellant a 'kudikidappukaran' within the meaning of Act 1 of 1964? Certain nice and interesting questions were debated before us which have occasioned this matter being placed before a Division Bench. But is the appellant a 'kudikidappukaran' within the meaning of Act 1 of 1964? Certain nice and interesting questions were debated before us which have occasioned this matter being placed before a Division Bench. One of them was whether sub-clause (2) of S.2 (25) would necessarily take in its ambit, also the site on which the but stands, and whether the words in the clause, "Kudikidappu means the land and the homestead or the but so permitted to be erected or occupied" should be read distributively so as to mean: "the land and the homestead permitted to be erected, or the but permitted to be occupied." A further refinement was whether the permission contemplated by S.2 (25) is one that is extant on the date of the institution of the suit, or whether it relates to the point of time when Act I of 1964 came into force. Madhavan Nair J. in Gopalan v. Chellamma (1966 KLT. 673) appears to have been of the view that the permission contemplated by Clause.1 and 2 of S.2 (25) must be alive on the date of coming into force of the Act. The learned judge also read the words defining kudikidappukaran in the latter part of S.2 (25) (ii), distributively as noted earlier. Raman Nayar J. (as he then was), was inclined to take a different view on all these points. Second Appeal No. 454 of 1967 was adjourned for being heard by a Division Bench, as it was felt that the decision in 1966 KLT. 673 required re-consideration. But the decision on the said appeal did not resolve the conflict of views. It appears to us that this appeal can be disposed of without resolving any of the controversies reflected in the judgments noticed. 3. The Travancore-Cochin Prevention of Eviction of Kudikidappukars* Act 1958, defines kudikidappukaran as follows. 673 required re-consideration. But the decision on the said appeal did not resolve the conflict of views. It appears to us that this appeal can be disposed of without resolving any of the controversies reflected in the judgments noticed. 3. The Travancore-Cochin Prevention of Eviction of Kudikidappukars* Act 1958, defines kudikidappukaran as follows. "(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; 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." S. 3 of the said Act conferred a permanent right of occupancy on a kudikidappukaran. It will be noted that this definition requires that the kudikidappukaran should have been permitted the use or occupation, of a portion of land. The next material provision is contained in the Kerala Act I of 1957. S.2 (3) of the said Act defines the term kudikidappukaran as follows: "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 had been permitted by the latter to occupy that hut, but otherwise has no interest in the land;" The Act received the assent of the President on 25th May 1957. The above section included a person in occupation of a but also, within the definition of 'kudikidappukaran'. The Act was preceded by the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Ordinance I of 1957, which was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 11th April 1957 and which defined kudikidappukaran by S.2(3) thereof in identical terms as Act I of 1957. The date of the coming into force of Ordinance I of 1957 is freely reflected in the definition of 'kudikidappukaran' in S.2 (25) of the Kerala Act I of 1964. 4. The date of the coming into force of Ordinance I of 1957 is freely reflected in the definition of 'kudikidappukaran' in S.2 (25) of the Kerala Act I of 1964. 4. Next in sequence came the Kerala Act XXX of 1958, which amended Act I of 1957 which came into force on 31st May 1958. The definition of kudikidappukaran therein is as follows: "2 (3). "Kudikidappukaran" means a person who has no homestead or land of his own to erect a homestead and (i) who has been permitted with or without an obligation to pay rent by an owner of land to have the use and occupation of a portion of the land in his possession for the purpose of erecting a homestead, or (ii) who is in occupation of a but contracted by a person owning and possessing the land in which the but is situated and who has been permitted by such person to occupy the but with or without an obligation to pay rent; but otherwise has no interest in the land; and "kudikidappu" means the land and the homestead or the but so permitted to be erected or occupied together with the easements attached thereto, and includes an ulkudi. Explanation I Any person who was in occupation of a kudikidappu on the commencement of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Ordinance 1957, shall be deemed to be in occupation of such kudikidappu with permission as required under this clause. Explanation II For the purpose of this clause, "hut" means any dwelling house which has a value not exceeding four hundred rupees". For the purposes of this case, it is unnecessary to trace the further course of legislation upto Act I of 1964. 5. From the above historical survey, it appears to us that the legislature erected a wall of protection around the concept of the term' Kudikidappukaran as crystallised by the definition of Ordinance I of 1957 which came into force on 11-4-1957 and as expanded by Act 30 of 1958, Act I of 1964 etc. It appears further to us that if on that crucial date, viz., 11-4-1957, a person cannot qualify for the definition of 'kudikidappukaran' as contained in the said Ordinance, ex hypothesi the statutory protection becomes unavailable: Such seems to be the position disclosed in the instant case. 6. It appears further to us that if on that crucial date, viz., 11-4-1957, a person cannot qualify for the definition of 'kudikidappukaran' as contained in the said Ordinance, ex hypothesi the statutory protection becomes unavailable: Such seems to be the position disclosed in the instant case. 6. The appellant's definite case in the written statement was that the building or but taken over by him under Ext. P1 was destroyed by floods, in Karkitakam 1131 (July-August 1956). As D. W.1 he gave evidence to that effect. His case of destruction by floods was found against. But on his pleading and evidence, that on the 11th April 1957 there was no but or building in existence to which any statutory protection conferred by Act I of 1957 would attach. The Travancore-Cochin Act did not take in the bare occupant of a but in its definition of 'Kudikidappukaran' and gave no right to a 'kudikidappukaran' to reconstruct the homestead. Ordinance I of 1957 and Act I of 1957, included even a bare occupant of a but within the definition; and the provisions introduced by the amending Act 30 of 1958 are perhaps capable of raising the controversy whether land is common to both clauses (i) & (ii)of the definition of "Kudikidappukaran', as it stood after the amendment. But before the Ordinance and the Acts came into force the but or the building had been destroyed, and there was nothing on which the provisions could operate: Also the Ordinance and the Acts contained no provision for reconstruction of the kudikidappukaran's homestead. By the time such a right was given, as it was, for instance by Act 4 of 1961 struck down as un-constitutional in the Malabar and Travancore areas the re-constructed building in the present case had already come into existence in 1133 (1958). 7. We will assume that permission to occupy the site of the but or building is necessarily implied in, or is necessarily appurtenant to, a permission to occupy the but or building itself. But this can only be as an accessory licence, which cannot survive the cancellation or revocation of the main licence itself, by the destruction of its subject-matter. So that, when the but which was the subject-matter of Ext. P1 ceased to exist in July-August 1956, the necessary licence to occupy the site, also ceased along with it. But this can only be as an accessory licence, which cannot survive the cancellation or revocation of the main licence itself, by the destruction of its subject-matter. So that, when the but which was the subject-matter of Ext. P1 ceased to exist in July-August 1956, the necessary licence to occupy the site, also ceased along with it. (vide the principle in S.55 and 62 (1) of the Easements Act). In this view of the matter also, the appellant had ceased to be a kudikidappukaran on 114 1957. 8. We are of the view that in order to claim the benefits of a 'kudikidappukaran' under the Kerala Act I of 1964 a person must be shown to satisfy the definition of a 'kudikidappukaran' on 114 1957. The appellant in the present case did not satisfy this requirement. He is therefore not entitled to protection as a 'kudikidappukaran' under Act 1 of 1964. 9. We dismiss this appeal but make no order as to costs. Dismissed.