Judgment :- 1. The effect of Explanation IIA inserted in S 2 (25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 by amending Act 17 of 1972 arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant in Small Cause Suit No. 31 of 1968, a suit for arrears of rent on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cochin. The petitioner took on rent a room in a line building with a 'Charthu' attached to it from the respondent on 1-12-1124 on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. In 1965 the line building was demolished as the same and the property on which it stood was acquired by the State for widening of the road in front of the same. But the Charthu attached to it was not demolished as the property on which it stood was not acquired and the petitioner continued to occupy the same on payment of the stipulated rent of Rs. 15/ . As the rent was not paid, the respondent-landlord filed the above Small Cause Suit for arrears of rent for the three years prior to the date of suit. The petitioner contended that he is entitled to kudikidappu right But the court below by its judgment dated 5-2-1975 decreed the suit as prayed for holding that for granting the relief sought in the suit it was not necessary to give a decision whether the petitioner has kudikidappu rights. The above decision was questioned by the petitioner before this Court in CRP. No. 801 of 1975. My learned brother Namboodiripad J. remanded the matter to the court below for fresh consideration of the question whether the petitioner is a kudikidappukaran of the Charthu in question holding that if the defendant is a kudikidappukaran then, certainly, his liability to pay the rent also has to be adjudged on that basis in view of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. 2. Thereupon, the question whether the petitioner has got kudikidappu rights was again considered by the court below. The court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a kudikidappukaran for the reason that what was originally let out to the petitioner was part of a large building, and a portion of a building cannot be considered as a but or dwelling house as per the definition of kudikidappukaran in S.2 (25) of the Act. The court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a kudikidappukaran for the reason that what was originally let out to the petitioner was part of a large building, and a portion of a building cannot be considered as a but or dwelling house as per the definition of kudikidappukaran in S.2 (25) of the Act. The petitioner challenges the above finding of the court below in this Civil Revision Petition. 3. A Full Bench of this Court is Muhammad v. Imbichibi (1974 KLT. 738 FB ) has construed Explanation II to S.2 (25) of the Act and held that a person occupying a portion of a building belonging to another is not a kudikidappukaran. Explanation IIA inserted by Amending Act 17 of 1972 reads: "Explanation IIA.-Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, a person, who, on the 16th day of August, 1968, was in occupation of any land and the 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: Provided that no such person shall be deemed to be a kudikidappukaran (a) in cases where the dwelling house has not been constructed by such person or by any of his predecessors in interest, if (i) such dwelling house was constructed at a cost, at the time of construction, exceeding seven hundred and fifty rupees; or (ii) such dwelling house could have, at the time of construction, yielded a monthly lent exceeding five rupees; or (b) if he has a building or is in possession of any land 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 " As per the above Explanation, a person who was in occupation of any land and the dwelling house thereon on the 16th day of August, 1968 and who continued to be in such occupation till the 1st day of January 1970 will be deemed to be a kudikidappukaran. In this case, the petitioner was in occupation of the 'charthu' in question throughout the period mentioned above. In this case, the petitioner was in occupation of the 'charthu' in question throughout the period mentioned above. Not only that, since the line-building, a room in which with the 'charthu' attached was originally let out to the petitioner, was demolished in 1965 consequent on the acquisition by the State Government, thereafter the 'charthu' occupied by the petitioner did not form part of any dwelling house. So, even if what was originally put in the occupation of the petitioner formed part of a building, after the demolition of the building in 1965 the 'charthu' which continued to be in the occupation of the petitioner did not form part of any building. So, the Full Bench decision in Muhammad v. Imbichibi (1974 KLT. 738 F.B.) is not applicable to the facts of this case. The petitioner satisfies all the requirements in Explanation IIA inserted by the amending Act 17 of 1972 Hence, the petitioner cannot be denied kudikidappu rights even though what was originally put in the occupation of the petitioner was part of a building. 4. For the reasons stated above, the decision of the Small Cause Court calls for interference as the same was not according to law. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and Small Cause Suit No. 31 of 1968 will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.