The main legal point established in the judgment is the precedence of the order of the Land Tribunal over the order of the Rent Control Court, and the executability of the orders of the Rent Control Court in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code.

1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 197 of 1978 of the Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara, is the revision petitioner. The suit was for a declaration that he was not liable to be evicted in execution of the order passed by the Rent Control Court in B. R. C. O. P. No. 18 of 1974 as it was unenforceable against him in view of the order of the Land Tribunal, Athiyannur in O. A. No. 891 of 1972 declaring him as a kudikidappukaran. The suit arose under the following circumstances: The petitioner filed O. A. No. 891 of 1972 for purchase of kudikidappu right under S.80-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. That application was dismissed by the Land Tribunal on 28-2-1973. The petitioner filed an appeal as A. A. No. 1022 of 1973 before the Appellate Authority. It was then that the rent control petition was filed by the landlord for eviction. The petitioner raised a plea that he was a kudikidappukaran and hence was not liable to be evicted. This question was referred under S.125 (3) of the Act to the same Land Tribunal who had earlier decided O. A. No. 891 of 1972. The Land Tribunal entered a finding against the petitioner which finding was accepted by the Rent Control Court and eviction was ordered on, 24-2-1976. The Appellate Authority constituted under the Act took up the appeal for hearing and as per its order dated 5-8-1976 set aside the order of the Land Tribunal in O.A. No. 891 of 1972 and remanded the case back to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. The appeal filed against the order of the Rent Control Court as B.R.C.A. No. 78 of 1976 was dismissed on 28-8-1976. A revision was filed by the petitioner as B.R.C. Revision No. 157 of 1976. The revisional Court passed an order as follows on 12-1-1977:

"It is however pleaded for the revision petitioner that his kudikidappu claim is still pending before the authorities constituted under the Land Reforms Act. All that earn be provided therefore is that if within one month from to-day, he is able to produce any such orders before the Rent Controller upholding his kudikidappu claims, the order for eviction would stand vacated."

On 29-3-1977 the Land Tribunal allowed the petition for purchase of kudikidappu. The respondent took out execution of the rent control order since the kudikidappu order could not be obtained within the time laid down by the revision Court. The petitioner resisted execution. He filed E.A. No. 290 of 1977 contending that he could not be evicted and produced the order of the Land Tribunal. The executing Court held on 6-6-1977 that the order was not executable in the face of the order of the Land Tribunal declaring the petitioner as a kudikidappukaran. A revision was filed to the District Court by the respondent as B.R.C. Revision No. 96 of 1977. The District Court reversed the order of the Executing Court and allowed execution to proceed by its order dated 30-11-1977.

2. Having been worsted thus, in the proceedings mentioned above, the present suit was filed by the petitioner with the prayers mentioned above. He filed I. A. No. 4424 of 1978 for an injunction to restrain the respondent from executing the rent control order and from evicting him. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. An appeal was filed to the District Court, which met with the same result. Hence this civil revision petition.

3. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide or settle any question which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Act. The findings of the Executing Court, according to him, should have been upheld by the appellate Court. Pointed reference was made to S.75 (1) and S.127 of the Act, which read as follows:

75(1) No kudikidappukaran shall be liable to be evicted from his kudikidappu except on the following grounds, namely:

(i) that he has alienated his right of kudikidappu to a person other than

(a) a member of his family; or

(b) a person who has no other homest