Thika tenancy law includes pucca structures where statutory conditions are met, triggering vesting under acquisition legislation.

The expression "any structure" in thika tenancy law was construed by reference to the statutory scheme and the purpose of the structure, not its construction type. A tenant is not excluded from thika tenant status merely because a pucca structure exists, if the land is held under another person, rent is payable, and the structure is erected or acquired for residential, manufacturing or business use. On that construction, the appellants satisfied the definition of thika tenant, and the vesting provision under the acquisition law applied to the thika tenancy land from the notified date. The earlier contrary view was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were thika tenants within the meaning of the governing thika tenancy law notwithstanding the erection of a pucca structure on the leased land; (ii) Whether the land in question vested in the State under the acquisition legislation.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were thika tenants within the meaning of the governing thika tenancy law notwithstanding the erection of a pucca structure on the leased land.

Analysis: The expression used in the definition of thika tenant was construed in the context of the statutory scheme and not in isolation. The definition required holding land under another person, liability to pay rent, and erection or acquisition of a structure for residential, manufacturing, or business purpose. The Court held that the phrase "any structure" in the definition was not concerned with the nature of the structure as kutcha or pucca, but with the purpose for which it was erected or acquired. The amendment inserting a definition of pucca structure and permitting erection of pucca structures with permission also showed that a thika tenant was not excluded merely because a pucca structure existed.

Conclusion: The appellants satisfied the definition of thika tenant.

Issue (ii): Whether the land in question vested in the State under the acquisition legislation.

Analysis: Once the appellants were held to be thika tenants, the vesting provision under the acquisition statute operated on lands comprised in thika tenancies from the notified date. The Court held that the earlier contrary view taken by the High Court overlooked the statutory amendments and the correct construction of the definition and vesting provisions.

Conclusion: The land vested in the State with effect from 18 January 1982.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside, the tribunal's order was restored, and the appeal succeeded by recognizing the appellants' thika tenancy status and the statutory vesting of the land.

Ratio Decidendi: In construing thika tenancy legislation, the expression "any structure" in the definition of thika tenant refers to the purpose of the structure and not to whether it is kutcha or pucca; therefore, a tenant is not excluded from thika tenant status merely because a pucca structure exists, if the statutory conditions are otherwise met.

---