Judgment :- 1. The petitioner took on lease a shop building in 1959 from the then karanavan of the 1st respondent's tarwad for conducting a tea-shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 3/- Later on the petitioner shifted his residence also to the shop-building and continued the tea-shop. In 1970 the 1st respondent moved the Rent Control Court for the eviction of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O A. No. 2772 of 1970 before the Land Tribunal, Mulan-thuruthy under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act I of 1964 for short the Act, for purchase, contending that be is a kudikidappukaran. The application was allowed by the Land Tribunal, but in appeal the Appellate Authority remanded the case for fresh enquiry and disposal according to law to the Land Tribunal No. 1, Ernakulam. The purchase application was renumbered as O A. No 527 of 1975. The Land Tribunal dismissed the purchase application holding that the petitioner is not a kudikidappukaran. The petitioner took the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Ernakulam. But the appeal was also dismissed. It was then that the petitioner filed this revision. The questions that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the tenant of a building can claim to be a kudikidappukaran under The Travancore-Cochin Prevention of Eviction of Kudikidappukars, Act 13 of 1955; and (ii) if he cannot claim to be a kudikidappukaran under the above Act, in view of S.3(1)(iii) and the proviso to S.3(1)(iii) to (vii) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 is he entitled to purchase the kudikidappu under S.80B even if he is a kudikidappukaran as per the Act. 2. The petitioner's contention that the building now in existence is the building to which he shifted in 1961 with the permission of the landlord and it is not the building in respect of which Ext. B1 coolicharthu was executed in 1959 need only be stated and rejected. On this question of fact the concurrent findings of the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority are there, and it cannot be said that the findings are in any way erroneous in law. 3. S.3 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 reads: "3. Exemptions. (1) Nothing in this Chapter shall apply to .......... (ii) ... ... On this question of fact the concurrent findings of the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority are there, and it cannot be said that the findings are in any way erroneous in law. 3. S.3 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 reads: "3. Exemptions. (1) Nothing in this Chapter shall apply to .......... (ii) ... ... (iii) leases of land or of buildings or of both specifically granted for industrial or commercial purposes; or (iv) ... ... (v) ... ... (vi) ... ... (vii) ... ... Provided that nothing in clauses (i) to (vii) shall apply in the case of persons who were entitled to fixity of tenure immediately before 21st January, 1961, under any law then in force or persons claiming under such persons; (Provisions which are not relevant here are left out). S. 2(c) of the Travancore-Cochin Prevention of Eviction of Kudikidappukars Act, 13 of 1955 reads: "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 homested with or without an obligation to pay rent for the use and occupation of the site so given; and 'kudiyirippu' means the site so given together with the bouse, but or shed thereon which is used as a place of residence by the Kudikidappukaran with the permission of the owner." S. 2(3) of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act 1 of 1957 reads: "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 thai hut, but otherwise has no interest in the land". A shop-building was let out to the petitioner in 1959 for conducting a tea-shop. So, it is a lease specifically granted for commercial purposes and it clearly falls within the exemption provided by S.3(1)(iii) of the Act. Even if the petitioner later on shifts to the shop-building and sets up his residence there, the lease granted will not cease to be one granted for commercial purposes. So, it is a lease specifically granted for commercial purposes and it clearly falls within the exemption provided by S.3(1)(iii) of the Act. Even if the petitioner later on shifts to the shop-building and sets up his residence there, the lease granted will not cease to be one granted for commercial purposes. It is immaterial whether he stops or continues the tea-shop. It is by Chapter II of the Act that rights like the right to fixity, the right to assignment of the landlord's rights and the right to purchase the kudikidappu are conferred upon the tenants and kudikidappukars. But as per S.3, nothing in Chapter II shall apply to persons whose transactions are covered by the exemptions But exemptions (i) to (vii) of S.3(1) are subject to the exception provided for by the proviso to S.3(1)(i) to (vii). It is an exception to the exemptions. As per the proviso, if a person was entitled to fixity of tenure immediately before 21st January, 1961 the provisions in Chapter II will be applicable to him even if his case falls under any of the exemptions (i) to (vii) of S.3(1), The petitioner claims kudikidappu rights. S.80B which provides for the purchase of kudikidappu forms part of Chapter II. So, even if the transaction by which the petitioner got into possession is a lease for commercial purposes falling under exemption 3(1)(iii), the petitioner is entitled to purchase his kudikidappu if be was a kudikidappukaran entitled to fixity of tenure immediately before 21st January 1961. Kudikidappukars are broadly of two categories: (1) Persons occupying huts put up by them is pursuance of the permission given by the land-owner to use and occupy a portion of his land and (2) persons occupying but belonging to the land-owner with his permission. The Travancore-Cochin Prevention of Eviction of Kudikidappukars Act 1955, which was in force during the relevant period in the area in which the building in question is situated conferred only fixity of tenure (permanent right of occupancy in the kudikidappu) only to the first category of kudikidappukars because the definition of Kudikidappukaran in that Act did not include the second category. Though protection against eviction was there for both categories of Kudikidappukars by temporary statutes like The Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act 1 of 1957, Kudikidappukars occupying huts belonging to the land-owner were not given fixity of tenure by those enactments Irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner is a kudikidappukaran as per Act 1 of 1964, as the petitioner was not a person entitled to fixity of tenure immediately before the 21st January 1961 under any law then in force he will not come under the exception provided by the proviso to the exemptions enumerated in S.3(1)(i) to (vii). So, it goes without saying that the petitioner cannot invoke S.80B of the Act and purchase his kudikidappu Hence the dismissal of the petitioner's application for purchase cannot be interfered in revision. 4. Reliance was placed on three decisions of this Court by the counsel In Joseph v. Antony (1970 KLT. 534) in Para.4 it is said: "The present proceeding does not involve the determination of the question as to whether the defendant is a kudikidappukaran. That has been decided already so far as that court is concerned and all that arises in the review application is as to whether the allegations attract the grounds set out in 0.47 R.1, CPC." So, all that has been said in the above decision about the kudikidappu and its existing use is only obiter dicta The decision in Gopalan v. Lekshmi Amma (1977 KLT. 807) is distinguishable on facts. In that case, as the building was put up by the person claiming kudikidappu he comes under the first category of kudikidappukars mentioned earlier in this judgment, who were given fixity of tenure by the 1955 Act In this case, as the petitioner does not come under that category he has no fixity under the 1955 Act. The result is that he cannot get. out of the exemption in S.3 (1) (iii) of the Act. The effect of the exemption in S.3 (1) (iii) was not either raised or considered in that case. In George v. Sivadasan (1972 KLR.128) the building in question did not belong to the land-owner. The result is that he cannot get. out of the exemption in S.3 (1) (iii) of the Act. The effect of the exemption in S.3 (1) (iii) was not either raised or considered in that case. In George v. Sivadasan (1972 KLR.128) the building in question did not belong to the land-owner. The person who claimed the kudikidappu right purchased the building in 1 i 24 M. E. which was put up by another in 1113 M. E. with the permission of the land-owner What was originally a shop building was later used for residence from 1952 onwards The question that arose for consideration was whether because of the proviso to S.2 (25) (now repealed by Act 17 of 1972 which inserted a similar provision in S.2 (25) as Explanation IIA.) permission to put up a homestead should be deemed to have been obtained. This decision is also not applicable to the facts of this case. 5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs Dismissed.