Judgment :- 1. Kudikidappukaran has fixity of tenure under the Land Reforms Act. He has also the right to purchase the adjoining land belonging to the landlord, according to the procedure and subject to the limits prescribed by the Act. The purchase certificate issued in his favour makes him the absolute owner in respect of the but or homestead where he was allowed to reside or which he was permitted to construct and also the adjoining land not exceeding ten cents. He is then no longer a kudikidappukaran but an owner on his own right. Till he obtained the purchase certificate, as a kudikidappukaran, his rights in his kudikidappu are heritable, but not alienable except to any person specified in sub-s. (1) of S.75 of the Act. An alienation by a kudikidappukaran not authorised by the Act gives rise to a claim for eviction in favour of the landlord. The short question for consideration in this revision is whether an alienee of a kudikidappukaran, whose alienation gives rise to a cause of action for eviction, proceed with an application for purchase of the landlord's rights and thus defact the statutory right of eviction available to the landlord? 2. The short facts. 3. The first respondent claiming to be a kudikidappukaran of a Seminari attached to a church in Kottayam, filed an application under S.80B of the Act for purchase of kudikidappu before the Land Tribunal, Kottayam in 1976, During the pendency of the proceedings, he assigned his rights to the Secretary, Bharat Scouts Association, the respondent on 2-11-1978. The assignee has also got himself impleaded. The Land Tribunal and the appellate authority have held, overruling the objection of the landlord that the application for purchase by the alienee is maintainable, the first respondent having practically withdrawn from the scene. These orders are challenged in this revision. under S.103 of Act 1 of 1964. 4. Sri. K.C. John, counsel for the petitioner submits that when the kudikidappukaran assigned his rights to the second respondent, his tenure became precarious, he was liable to be evicted and thus he forfeited his right to purchase the landlord's rights. When the assignment gave rise to a claim for eviction, it is submitted that the assignee cannot defact those statutory rights by attempting to purchase the landlord's rights under the Act. When the assignment gave rise to a claim for eviction, it is submitted that the assignee cannot defact those statutory rights by attempting to purchase the landlord's rights under the Act. He also submitted that in any case, the distinction sought to be made by the authorities between an assignment of land without the kudikidappu and the assignment of kudikidappu itself is unwarranted and unsupported by facts or law. 5. It is therefore necessary to advert to the relevant provisions of the Act. S.75 so far as it is relevant reads thus: "75. Kudikidappukaran to have fixity (1) No Kudikidappukaran shall be liable to be evicted from his kudikidappu except on the following grounds, namely: (i) that he has alienated his right of kudikidappu to a person other than (a) a member of his family; or (b) a person who has no other homestead or any land in possession, either as owner or as tenant, on which he could erect a homestead and whose annual income does not exceed two thousand rupees; (ii) that he has rented or leased out his entire kudikidappu to another person for a period of not less than two years; (iii) that he has Ceased to reside in the kudikidappu continuously for a period of two years; or (iv) that he has another kudikidappu or has obtained ownership and possession of land which is fit for erecting a homestead within a distance of five kilometres from his kudikidappu:" S. 78 is as follows: 78. Right of kudikidappukaran to be heritable but not alienable except in certain cases:'-The rights of a kudikidappukaran in his kudikidappu shall be heritable but not alienable except to any person mentioned in sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b) of clause (i) of sub-s.(1) of S.75". S. 80B (1) and (3) provides thus:280B. Procedure for purchase by kudikidappukaran (1) A kudikidappukaran entitled under S.80A to purchase the kudikidappu occupied by him and lands adjoining thereto may apply to the Land Tribunal for such purchase. S. 80B (1) and (3) provides thus:280B. Procedure for purchase by kudikidappukaran (1) A kudikidappukaran entitled under S.80A to purchase the kudikidappu occupied by him and lands adjoining thereto may apply to the Land Tribunal for such purchase. (3) The Land Tribunal shall, after giving notice to the kudikidappukars in the land in which the kudikidappu is situate and other persons interested in the land after such enquiry as may be prescribed pass such orders on the application as it thinks fit:" S. 80C (2) reads thus:- " As soon as may be after the order of the Land Tribunal under sub-s. (3) of S.80B has become final, the Land Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed, and there upon the right, title and interest of the landowner, the intermediaries, if any, and the person in possession where he is not the landowner, in respect of the land allowed to be purchased, shall vest in the kudikidappukaran free from all encumbrances with effect from the date on which the order of the Land Tribunal under the said sub-s. (3) has become final". 6. The kudikidappukaran has a valuable right to purchase the kudikidappu occupied by him and the lands adjoining thereto. The kudikidappukaran is only a tenant of the but or the homestead which he is permitted to construct or which he is allowed to reside. The statutory right to purchase the rights of the landlord is not only in respect of the but but also of the adjoining land which belongs to the landlord. When once this purchase is effected, the landlord looses all his rights not only over the but or homestead, but also over the adjoining land. This is the effect of the purchase certificate issued in favour of the kudikidappukaran. The issuance of a purchase certificate in favour of a kudikidappukaran therefore extinguishes the right to evict the kudikidappukaran. Kudikidappukaran becomes an owner of the land and the hut, homestead, etc on his own right. The right to eviction available under S.75 (1) no more exists when the kudikidappukaran thus becomes the owner. The right to evict the kudikidappukaran can therefore subsist only till the purchase certificate is issued to the kudikidappukaran. This right to evict arose when the kudikidappukaran assigned his rights in contravention of the provision contained in S.75 (1) of the Act. The right to eviction available under S.75 (1) no more exists when the kudikidappukaran thus becomes the owner. The right to evict the kudikidappukaran can therefore subsist only till the purchase certificate is issued to the kudikidappukaran. This right to evict arose when the kudikidappukaran assigned his rights in contravention of the provision contained in S.75 (1) of the Act. This statutory right created in favour of the landlord by the conduct of the kudikidappukaran cannot be defeated by the alienee of that kudikidappukaran by purchasing the landlord's rights. The alienee, under the circumstances, cannot foreclose the right of eviction available to the landlord by a pre-emptive bid to purchase. An application to purchase the landlord's rights at his instance does not lie. The application filed by the original kudikidappukaran cannot be proceeded with at his instance also, for he has no longer any interest in the purchase and his assignment has given rise to the cause of action for eviction. The application for purchase of the kudikidappu has therefore to be dismissed on this ground. 7. It is difficult to understand the reasons which weighed with the appellate authority, for, it merely catalogued the contention and then, without any further reasoning, held that the application is maintainable. Shri. K.C. John, learned counsel submits that the appellate authority has attempted to make a subtle distinction between an assignment of land without the kudikidappu and an assignment of the kudikidappu itself. This is a distinction without any substance. A kudikidappu cannot exist without the land on which the house or homestead is situate. The transfer by a kudikidappu can only be of the land with the but or homestead. It is the land and the but or homestead that constitute the tenancy. The ownership in the land vested in the landlord. The kudikidappu does not transfer and cannot transfer the landlord's rights in the land to his assignee. His transfer is only of his interest, the interest of a kudikidappukaran, i. e. he transfers his interest in the land and the kudikidappu. To say, therefore, that the assignee purchased only the land and not anything existing on the land is to ignore the realities. In the present case, the assignment to the second respondent is of the kudikidappu rights asserted by the first respondent. The reasoning of the authorities that there has been no transfer of kudikidappu is clearly wrong. 8. To say, therefore, that the assignee purchased only the land and not anything existing on the land is to ignore the realities. In the present case, the assignment to the second respondent is of the kudikidappu rights asserted by the first respondent. The reasoning of the authorities that there has been no transfer of kudikidappu is clearly wrong. 8. It has to be understood that as a kudikidappukaran valuable right is given to a person who has neither a homestead nor any land. The whole object and scheme of the Act will be defeated, if the Association, the assignee of the rights, the second respondent in this case is allowed purchase under the Act. In the result, the orders of the Land Tribunal and the appellate authority are set aside and the application for kudikidappu filed by the first respondent and continued by the second respondent shall stand dismissed. This revision is therefore allowed and the right of the petitioner to claim eviction is left open.