(1) THIS appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the division bench of the Kerala High court in AS No. 45 of 1975, dated 1/2/1984.

(2) THE respondents laid the suit before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Trivandrum for possession on the ground that the appellant had surrendered his tenancy rights and, thereafter, trespassed into the land, thereby he is in illegal possession. It is the case of the appellant that he never surrendered the land and he continued to be the tenant and that therefore, the respondents are not entitled to the possession of the land. Since there was a controversy as regards the tenancy, by operation of Section 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 (1 of 1964 (for short, the Act), the Civil court referred the matter to the Land tribunal. After the filing of the suit but, before the reference was made, the appellant filed an application under Section 72-B of the Act for permission to purchase the respondents interest in the land as an occupancy tenant. The tribunal held that the appellant was a tenant and consequently permission was granted to him to purchase the land. Since the reference was made, the finding was returned to the Civil court that the appellant is the tenant. Acting upon that finding, by operation of Ss. (6 of Section 125 of the Act, the Civil court dismissed the suit. The respondents carried the matter in appeal. While disposing of the appeal, the division bench held that since the dispute as to whether the appellant is a tenant, is pending adjudication, the tribunal could not have granted permission to the appellant to purchase the land. It also held that since on reference, the Land tribunal had recorded the finding, on tenancy, it is not necessary for the Civil court to make further reference but, it itself can dispose of the suit by recording a finding on tenancy. Accordingly remitted the case as under:

"WE have no doubt that this court has got the power to set aside the finding of the trial court on the question of lease and send the matter back to that court for a fresh finding and there is no necessity thereafter for the trial court to make another reference to the Land tribunal. The trial court was initially bound by the finding of the Land tribunal and that is a statutory trust. The trial court subsequently is bound by the remand order and when the remand order directs a fresh finding, that finding has to be given by the trial court and not by the Land tribunal. A second reference to the Land tribunal under the circumstances is thus not contemplated under Section 125 of the Act."

(3) IN the light of that finding, a direction was given that "the trial court shall dispose of the suit without any reference to the Land tribunal and based on the evidence already on record and also any additional evidence which it may allow the parties to adduce, including the cross-examination of Public Witness 1". The appeal was accordingly allowed and matter was remitted to the trial court for determination of the question of tenancy raised by the appellant. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

(4) IT is contended by Shri G. Viswanatha Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that both the findings recorded by the High court are clearly wrong. On the question of right of the tenant to purchase the land, it is stated that independent of the suit an application under Section 72-B was filed before the Land tribunal and the Land tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the question of dispute as regards the tenancy as well. He further contends that having decided that the appellant is a tenant and was entitled to purchase the land, the need to await the decision does not arise. The respondents had carried the matter in appeal against that order which is pending decision, the High court was not justified in interfering with that order and remitting the suit to the civil court to decide that question. It is further contended that Section 125(1 of the Act