The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of S.32 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, emphasizing the intention of the Legislature to lean in favor of the Tribunal and to exclude the civil court for solving the problems of land reforms, and clarifying the scope of the term 'entertain' under S.32.

Sukumaran, J.

S.32 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act has been interpreted differently by judges of this Court. The conflict of views and the resulting confusion, understandably dim the vision of those having the duty to decide. Justice Kader noted the discomforting discord in the judicial opinion and made an order of reference on 21-3-1984. We have to, and therefore proceed to, answer it.

2. The section which generated discord in judicial voice appears simple, at any rate at the first blush. Let us extract it:

"During the pendency of an application for determination- of fair rent before a Land Tribunal, no Court shall entertain any suit for eviction of the applicant from the holding to which the application relates, or pass any order of injunction prohibiting him from entering the holding or pass any order staying the proceedings before the Land Tribunal".

3. The first interpretation came from Krishna Iyer, J. when he was sitting in this Court: Kadir Mohammed v. Augusthy Varghese, 1969 K.L.T. 739. In the very next year, Sadasivan, J. made a different approach in applying the section. Holding that the section was-attracted to the facts, the learned judge adjourned the suit sine the. Five years later, a Division Bench indicated its inclination to agree with the main decision in ManiChacko v. Subromonian Moothathu, 1970 KL.T.1022. That Bench, however, took the view that when an entertainment or institution of a suit is prohibited, it could not be received and adjourned, whether sine the or otherwise. The correctness of the latter observation was contested before Kader, J. The contest had a significant support of the observations of the Supreme Court, interpreting the word 'entertain' (though occurring in a Sales-tax act), in all its ramifications.

4. The law relating to land reforms is a dynamic one intended to give relief to the weaker sections of the society about whom particular care was directed to be taken by the Directive Principles of State Policy occurring in the Constitution of India. The hungry and angry tenant would not ordinarily tolerate theoretical abstractions. A sagacious philosopher of recent limes quoted the words of an ancient philosopher, to bring out the vital difference between theory and life. The sentence reads: "Mephistopheles tells the young student that theory is grey but the tree of life LVgreen, "

(See In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell, Unwin Paperbacks 1984 Edn., Page 34)

5. We have to deal with a problem of the greenery of life.

6. The ingredients to attract the bar of S.32 are: (1) There must be, before a Land Tribunal, the pendency of an application for determination of fair rent. (2) The application must be before a Land Tribunal. (3) There must be, suit before the civil court, a suit for eviction. (4) The eviction must be of the same person as figures as the applicant before the Land Tribunal. (5) The suit must be in respect of the very land which is the subject matter of the fair rent application.

7. In the present case, there is no dispute that there was an application for the determination of fair rent before a Land Tribunal. The relief sought for in the plaint is for evicting the very person who is the applicant before the Land Tribunal, and from the very same land. The bar would get attracted to the facts, is the first impression. Is it the best impression? The court has to halt and proceed in view of a differing sign board.

8. Krishna Iyer, J. held that the section is integrally linked with S.31, which enables only a cultivating tenant or landlord to apply for determination of fair rent. An established status of cultivating tenant, according to the learned judge, was therefore necessary and indispensable to attract the bar of S.32. The concept of the word holding also, buttressed the conclusion that the applicant before the Tribunal seeking fixation of fair rent, and the person sought to be evicted through the process of civil court, alike, should be a person whose status as tenant