Karthiayani Pillai vs Appi Pennu Mathu

P.T. Raman Nayar, J.—No error of law. The words "with or without an obligation to pay rent" occurring in Section 2. (25) of Act I of 1964 which tells us what a Kudikidappukaran is here the word "rent" is used in the ordinary sense of the word as the periodical payment made by lessee to a lessor, the Act definition of rent in Section 2 (49) not being attracted, the subject matter of the transaction being like that of the lease in this case, only a dwelling house and not any land--clearly show that the lessee of a dwelling house can be a kudikidappukaran provided that the other conditions required by the definition are satisfied. True a lessee occupies the property leased as of right and not by permission of the lessor but that the Act regards a lessee in the true sense of that word as defined in the Transfer of Property Act as a person permitted by the lessor to occupy the property leased is apparent both from the definition of "tenant" in Section 2 (57) as a person allowed to possess and enjoy the land of another and from the definition of "rent" in Section 2 (49) as whatever is lawfully payable by a person so permitting. Both definitions, it can scarcely be denied, take in, and are in fact primarily designed to take in, the case of what I might call a true lessee of land. I dismiss the appeal.