Judgment :- 1. In Muhammad v. Imbichibi.1974 K.L.T.738 a Full Bench of this Court considered the question whether a person occupying a portion of a building belonging to another is a kudikidappukaran and held: "Kudikidappu"'is defined as "the land and the homestead or the but". A "homestead" according to the definition is a "dwelling house" erected by the person permitted to have the use and occupation of any land for the purpose of such erection. There can be little doubt that where a person has been permitted the use and occupation of land for the purpose of erecting a "dwelling house". the "dwelling house" that is meant to be erected is a single structure. The definition of "kudikidappu" will comprehend a 'hut' and it is reasonable to give to the expression 'hut' the same character and content as that of a "dwelling house" constructed by a person who has been permitted to do so. It would therefore be proper to understand 'hut' as meaning a "dwelling house" complete in itself and not a place which is merely a part of larger structure which can be used for residential purposes Hut' is normally understood as a very small house complete in itself and low in cost. The word 'hut' conveys an idea quite different from a mere portion of a building or a larger structure which is used as a dwelling place. Nobody. we conceive. would refer to a flat or part of a street house even if complete in itself in that it provides necessary facilities for being used as a dwelling place. as a 'hut' a 'hut' or a 'homestead' for the purpose of the Act is an entity in itself. We hold that the petitioner is not a "kudikidappukaran". 2. The short point that arises for consideration in this case is whether the person in occupation of a part of a building will be a kudikidappukaran if the two parts and the lands in which they stand now belong to two different persons. even if all the other conditions insisted by S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 are satisfied. 3. The petitioner filed an Original Application before the Land Tribunal. Cannanore under S.80B of the Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 for the purchase of the kudikidappu contending that the building in his occupation. even if all the other conditions insisted by S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 are satisfied. 3. The petitioner filed an Original Application before the Land Tribunal. Cannanore under S.80B of the Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 for the purchase of the kudikidappu contending that the building in his occupation. belonging to the first respondent landowner is a but as defined in S.2(25) of the Act. The Original Application was opposed by the first respondent who contended that the building in the occupation of the petitioner is only part of a building and hence there was no kudikidappu. The Special Revenue Inspector deputed by the Land Tribunal reported that the building in the occupation of the petitioner is only part of a building comprising of two dwelling houses. The two parts of the building and the land in which they stood belonged to two persons. There was sufficient material before the Land Tribunal to show that all the other requisites of a kudikidappu insisted by S.2(25) of the Act were satisfied. The Land Tribunal allowed the application for purchase holding that the building in which the petitioner resides 'has a separate entity and the land in which the building stands has also a separate entity' and 'it is maintained separately although the lie of the building will show that it is a part of a big building'. 4. The first respondent challenged the order of the Land Tribunal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms). The Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and allowed the appeal holding that 'the question whether the remaining portion of the building has separate entity or separate existence etc. are not relevant matters to be considered 'and' in view of the fact that the kudikidappu forms part of a building the order of the lower court cannot be sustained.' 5. The petitioner has challenged the above judgment of the Appellate Authority in this Civil Revision. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that 'when lands and buildings belonging to two different land owners are occupied by different persons. The petitioner has challenged the above judgment of the Appellate Authority in this Civil Revision. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that 'when lands and buildings belonging to two different land owners are occupied by different persons. each of the buildings does not cease to be a but as defined in the Act merely because they touch each other or have a common wall.' It was also contended that at any rate in view of Explanation IIA inserted in S.2(25) of the Act the petitioner cannot be denied kudikidappu rights. The learned counsel for the first respondent contended that it is immaterial whether the two parts of the building belong to two different persons and as long as what is in the occupation of the petitioner is a part of a building he will not be a kudikidappukaran as defined in S.2(25) of the Act. 6. Omitting words which are not relevant for the purposes of this case. the definition of kudikidappukaran in S.2(25) of the Act can be summarised as follows: "A kudikidappukaran means a person who has been permitted by the person in lawful possession of any land to occupy a but belonging to such person and situate in the said land and kudikidappu means the land and the but so permitted to be occupied and but means any dwelling bouse constructed by a person other than the person permitted to occupy it." Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary defines but as "a small or mean house: a small temporary dwelling or similar structure". So by conception a but cannot be a dwelling house big enough to be divided into and used as more than one dwelling houses. Going by the definition of 'hut' in Explanation II to S.2(25) also it can only be something which is complete in itself and which cannot be part of a structure. unlike building as defined in the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965 which includes part of a building also. So by no stretch of imagination a portion of a structure. however small it is. can be treated as a but because it would militate against the very conception of 'hut'. The position will not be different if two parts of a dwelling house and the land in which they stand belong to two different persons. So by no stretch of imagination a portion of a structure. however small it is. can be treated as a but because it would militate against the very conception of 'hut'. The position will not be different if two parts of a dwelling house and the land in which they stand belong to two different persons. It is the physical fact that the two parts treated as two units form part of one structure that stands in the way of treating them as two huts to make the occupants kudikidappukarans as per S.2 (25) of the Act. Even if a dwelling house is owned by more than one person if it is a but the occupant will be a kudikidappukaran provided the other ingredients insisted by S.2(25) are there. On the other hand. if the dwelling house is only part of a structure. irrespective of the fact whether the whole structure is owned by one or more than one. no part of it will be a but and the occupant will not be a kudikidappukaran. 7. The only point that remains to be considered is whether the petitioner can be a deemed kudikidappukaran as per Explanation IIA of S.2(25) of the Act. Proviso (a) to Explanation IIA reads: "Provided that no such person shall be deemed to be a kudikidappukaran (a) in cases whether 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 rent exceeding five rupees;" In this case. nobody has a case that the building in the occupation of the petitioner was put up by him or by any of his predecessors-in-interest. Going by the cost of construction estimated and the probable rent it could have fetched at the time of construction as estimated by the Special Revenue Inspector and accepted by the Land Tribunal the limits insisted by sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (a) of the proviso will be exceeded when the two parts are taken as a whole and hence Explanation IIA will not be applicable in this case and the petitioner though he occupies only a part of the building will not be a deemed Kudikidappukaran. 8. In the result. 8. In the result. the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.