K.T. Sankaran, J.

The appellant/ writ petitioner filed Ext.P1 application dated 18.03.2003 under section 53 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act before the Land Tribunal. (Hereinafter the appellant is referred to as the `petitioner'.) By Ext.P2 order dated 31.12.2003, the Land Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner is not in possession of the property having an extent of 3.75 acres. The petitioner has also filed Ext. P8 application dated 19.06.2003 before the Land Tribunal. The prayer in the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein is to issue a writ of Certiorari to quash Ext.P2 order and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent-Special Tahsildar to decide Exts. P1 and P8 applications after taking evidence. The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the property in question, which belonged in jenm to the predecessor in interest of the respondents 2 and 3, was taken on lease by Kochintya, the grand-father of the petitioner in the year 1890. Various subsequent lease deeds were also executed. After the death of Kochintya, his son Velukutty inherited the property . Velukutty died in the year 1968. The petitioner being the son of Velukutty claimed that he is entitled to possess and enjoy the property.

3. The Petitioner had filed an application before the Land Tribunal under section 31 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for fixation of fair rent. That application was dismissed by the Land Tribunal and the dismissal was confirmed by the appellate authority holding that the petitioner is not a cultivating tenant. The petitioner took up the matter in C.R.P. 1101 of 1973 before this court. The said Revision Petition was dismissed by Ext. R3(a) order dated 29.01.1974, wherein it was held that the petitioner is not a cultivating tenant and that Exts. D21 to D26-"Sookshmakychits" executed in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, do not constitute any right as that of a cultivating tenant. This Court held thus:

"The decision of the Tribunal as well as of the appellate authority were based on certain documents tendered in evidence by the respondents land owners. They are Exts. D21 to D26. These are "............................" executed in favour of the predecessor -in-interest of the respondents by one Velu, the father of the applicants and also by one Narayanan, his maternal uncle. These kychits were all for individual years; and the question raised and decided was whether these kychits confer any sort of right over the applicants. Apart from the provisions contained in these kychits the most significant aspect that cannot be overlooked in this context is that the period for which each of these kychits was executed was for individual year. In other words, the arrangement automatically terminated on the expiry of the stipulated period. The latest of the series of kychits is of the year 1122 and they are EXts. D23 and D25. On going through Ext.D25, it can be found that after the termination of the year the executant received back the initial deposit made by him after settlement of accounts. Thus the transaction stood closed in 1122. Therefore, the documents produced by the respondents and on which reliance was placed upon by the applicant do not support the applicant's case that he is a cultivating tenant within the meaning of Act 1 of 1964."

4. Between the parties there were five suits before the civil courts, viz.,O.S.Nos. 72 of 1974, 596 of 1970, 64 of 1973, 262 of 1970 and 263 of 1970. Against the decision in O.S.Nos. 262 and 263 of 1970, A.S.Nos. 176 of 1975 and 73 of 1976 were filed before the District Court and the District Court remanded the cases to the trial court for fresh consideration. In O.S.Nos. 596 of 1970 and 64 of 1973 , the question of tenancy was raised and it was contended that it requires reference to the Land Tribunal under section 125 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The trial court rejected that contention. Th