Thomas, ag. C. J.

In suit for eviction the defendant (a co-operative society) raised a contention, inter alia, that on the landed area leased out to the society sheds were constructed. On the sai d contention, the society claimed protection under S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act'). In the trial court a plea was made for reference to the Land Tribunal as envisaged in S.125 of the Act. But learned Munsiff rejected the plea on the main premise mat the suit does not pertain to that landed portion but only to three different buildings leased out to the society. Another ground for rejecting the said plea was that the question raised by the defendant under S.106 of the Act does not genuinely arise though such a contention has been advanced in the written statement. Learned Munsiff relied on the decision of this court in Sundaran v. Mohammed Koya (1995(2) KLT 115). The order rejecting the said plea is challenged by the defendant society in this revision.

2. When this revision came up for admission before a learned single judge, it was contended that correctness of the above decision in Sundaran v. Mohammed Koya requires reconsideration in the light of a re