Judgment :- 1. Revision petitioner challenges the judgment of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Cannanore in A. A. 5417 of 1978. The Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Land Tribunal holding that the revision petitioner has failed to prove his claim of tenancy over the property in question. 2. The short point to be considered is whether a person who has obtained purchase certificate under S.80-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act h entitled to file petition under S.72-B of the Act for the property for which purchase certificate has already been granted recognising the kudikidappu along with the adjacent property. The Land Tribunal allowed O.A. 386 of 1970 upholding the right of the revision petitioner to purchase kudikidappu right in the property in R. S.197/5. It is with respect to the very same property and an additional extent of property that the revision petitioner claims tenancy right and wants to purchase the leasehold right under S.72-B of the Act. The total extent claimed to be in possession of the revision petitioner is 25 cents. Deducting the extent covered by the kudikidappu the extent of the property is only 15 cents. But the revision petitioner claims right over 25 cents on the strength of leasehold right. Having pleaded kudikidappu with respect to 10 cents in the property and having obtained purchase certificate with respect to the same, the revision petitioner cannot claim leasehold right over the property for a portion of which purchase certificate has already been granted. Claim of tenancy and kudikidappu cannot coalesce as they are distinct and separate rights under the Act. 3. A tenant as defined under the Act means any person who has paid or has agreed to pay rent or other consideration for his being allowed to possess and enjoy any land by a person entitled to lease that land. S.2(57) of the Act enumerates the various classes of tenants. Kudikidappukaran is not one coming within the definition of the tenant under S.2(57) of the Act. As the revision petitioner has obtained purchase certificate with respect to 10 cents is R. S.197/5 under S.80-B and be cannot legally raise a contention that be has lease hold right with respect to the remaining property, it is no longer possible for him to contend that be has leasehold right in the entire property. 4. As the revision petitioner has obtained purchase certificate with respect to 10 cents is R. S.197/5 under S.80-B and be cannot legally raise a contention that be has lease hold right with respect to the remaining property, it is no longer possible for him to contend that be has leasehold right in the entire property. 4. Revision petitioner has not produced any evidence that be has leasehold right over the property in question. The oral lease pleaded by him has not been substantiated by cogent evidence. The Appellate Authority was justified in holding that the revision petitioner has failed to establish the lease set up by him. There is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition and hence the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.