Judgment :- Revision petitioners filed O.A. 520 of 1976 under Section 80 B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act claiming kudikidappu right in the properly. First respondent refuted the claim of kudikidappu and contended that the building was let out to the first revision petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.5/- as per Ext.d-1 rent deed dated 24-4-1966. Revenue Inspector reported the value of the building at the time of its construction as Rs.618/-. The Land Tribunal dismissed the Original Application and it has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority 2. The Appellate Authority held that the revision petitioners have claimed tenency right in the property in S.M.1681 of 1974 and as that claim was rejected it is not open to them to claim kudikidappu right now. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that merely because tenancy pleaded by the revision petitioners was found against there is no legal embargo in they claiming kudikidappu right and the Appellate Authority went wrong in dismissing the appeal. 3. The question that arises for consideration is whether a person who has set up tenancy right and failed to prove it can claim kudikidappu right? Counsel for the revision petitioners pointed out that the revision petitioners have satisfied the requirements under Explanation II-A to Section 2(25) of the Act to claim kudikidappu benefits in the property notwithstanding the fact that their claim of tenancy was rejected by the Land Tribunal previously. In other words, he contended that in a case where a person is able to satisfy the requirements under Explanation II-A to Section 2(25) he can very well claim kudikidappu right even though his plea of tenancy was previously rejected. 4. Contention that the revision petitioners are estopped from claiming kudikidappu benefit after having been worsted in their claim of tenancy is not tenable. Merely because revision petitioners claimed tenancy it is not possible to hold that respondent believed it to be true and acted upon such belief. On the other hand the consistent stand of respondent was one of firm denial of tenancy pleaded by the revision petitioner. To invoke the doctrine of estoppel the following three conditions must be satisfied: i) representation by a person to another; ii) the other shall have acted upon the said representation; and iii) such action worked to deteriment of the person to whom the representation was made. To invoke the doctrine of estoppel the following three conditions must be satisfied: i) representation by a person to another; ii) the other shall have acted upon the said representation; and iii) such action worked to deteriment of the person to whom the representation was made. It cannot be said that respondent accepted the plea of tenancy to his detriment. In fact, respondent could successfully thwart revision petitioners' claim of tenancy. Respondent never relied upon the plea of tenancy. Nor has he a case that he was no t aware of the true state of things and was misled to accept the claim of tenancy. Far from it, respondent was able to throw out revision petitioners' case of tenancy. As respondent has no case that he was not aware of the true state of things and that he was misled by the claim of tenancy of the revision petitioners the plea, that they are estopped from pleading kudikidappu is untenable 5. In Appukuttan v. Janaki Amma (1988 (1) KLT 512) the Supreme Court held that any one satisfying the requirements of Explanation Il-A would be entitled to have the status of a kudikidappukaran and to all the benefits flowing therefrom. As Explanation II-A contains a non-obstante clause, it is open to a person to claim kudikidappu benefits under this explanation if he really comes within its ambit even though his plea of tenancy was rejected earlier. 6. As the value of the building is less than Rs.750/- as evidenced by the Revenue Inspector's report and as the rent as per the rent deed does not exceed Rs.S/- per month it has to be held that the revision petitioners are entitled to kudikidappu right. The judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Land Tribunal are set aside. The Original Application stands allowed. C.R.P. is allowed. No costs.