The main legal point established in the judgment is that a second reference under S. 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is not incompetent due to a prior reference between the same parties, as the decision of the Land Tribunal on a prior reference does not form part of the decision of the civil court if it is not incorporated in the final order.

1. The short point that arises for decision in this revision is whether a reference U/S. 125 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 is incompetent where such a reference has already been made in a prior proceedings between the same parties. The revision petitioner is the respondent in B.R.C. (O.P.) No. 24/1979 on the file of the Rent Control Court. Kottayam. The original petition was filed by the respondent herein for eviction U/S. 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the allegation that the .petitioner is the tenant of a building within the meaning of that Act. The revision petitioner contended inter alia that the petitioner herein is not the tenant of a building and that he is the lessee of land for a commercial purpose. who has put up buildings in the land prior to the stipulated date and that the petitioner is hence entitled to the benefit of S.106 of the K.L.R. Act. The claim of the revision petitioner as a tenant entitled to the benefit U/S. 106 of the Act is not admitted and the question whether he is such a tenant arises for determination in the proceedings before the Rent Control Court.

2. The revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 2208/79 U/S. 125(3) of the Act for referring his claim for benefit U/S. 106 of that Act to the Land Tribunal. That application was rejected by the Rent Control Court. and the appellate authority and the revisional court declined to interfere. This revision is therefore filed U/S. 115 C.P.C.

3. The respondent herein had earlier filed as application for eviction as O.P. (R.C.) No. 36/74 wherein the identical contention was raised by the tenant. There was a reference to the Land Tribunal of that question U/S. 125(3) of the Act. The Land Tribunal entered the finding against the petitioner herein and returned it to the Rent Control Court. Thereafter the respondent did not appear in the Rent Control Court and the O.P.(R.C.) No.36/74 was dismissed for default of the landlord-petitioner therein.

4. The authorities below had considered a second reference U/S. 125(3) of the Act incompetent in the present proceedings for the sole reason that the earlier decision of the Tribunal on a similar reference binds the parties and operates as res judicata.

5. It cannot be disputed that on the pleadings in the ease the question as to whether the petitioner is a lessee entitled to the protection of S.106 of the K.L.R. Act arises for decision and that the said question has to be referred to the Land Tribunal in terms of S.125(3) of the Act. The earlier reference in the prior proceedings between the parties has become infructuous as the decision of the Land Tribunal on the reference could not be incorporated as a finding of the Rent Control Court in the final disposal of the original petition which has been dismissed for default. The decision of the Land Tribunal mentioned in sub-s. (4) of S.125 becomes part of the decision of the civil court by virtue of the mandate of sub-s.(5) of S.125. Where the decision of the Land Tribunal is not incorporated in the final order of the authority which made the reference that decision cannot have any legal existence or legal consequence. The reference is made at the interlocutory stage in order to enable the court to dispose of the matter pending before it effectively by obtaining the finding of the authority of exclusive jurisdiction on questions arising under the Land Reforms Act. The finding of the Land Tribunal on such reference is not an operative order in itself which could be enforced by the parties independent of the decision of the court. Therefore in a case where the suit or the proceedings before the civil court had been decided in favour of the party at whose instance the reference had been made. without recording the findings on merits. the finding of the Land Tribunal does not form part of the decision of the civil court and has no effect in law.

6. The adverse finding of the Tribunal cannot be challenged by the party when the origi