The court clarified the scope of S.32 of the Land Reforms Act, emphasizing that the question of proving tenancy for the purpose of the section is out of bounds for the civil court.

1. The question which falls for determination in this revision petition is whether the order of stay of the suit, O. S. No. 65 of 1969, directed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichur, is proper and legal. The determination of this short question has been so very much hedged in by decisions in regard to the scope of the enquiry in such matters, that it has occasioned this reference to a Full Bench of five judges.

2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed O. S. No. 65 of 1969, sub-Court, Trichur, to restrain the defendant by an injunction from interfering with his possession of a cashewnut garden. The filing of the suit had been preceded by an application filed by the respondent for fixation of fair rent in respect of the land. To that, the objection had been raised by the petitioner that the respondent was not a cultivating tenant. An

interim injunction had been granted in the suit and action for violation of injunction had also been launched. There was an amendment of the plaint adding an alternative prayer for recovery of possession with mesne profits, in case, it is found that the first defendant is in possession of the property. The application for amendment was moved in 1970 and was allowed in August, 1970. Thereafter, on 9 71973 the respondent filed an application for stay of the suit under S.32 of the Land Reforms Act and this was allowed by the learned Sub-Judge. Against the said order, the petitioner-landlord had preferred this revision petition.

3. S.32 of the Land Reforms Act reads as follows:

"32. Bar of suits for eviction etc., pending application for determination of fair rent.

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 land to which the application relates, or pass any order of injunction prohibiting him from entering the land or pass any order staying the proceedings before the Land Tribunal".

Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the question of the status of the respondent as a tenant is not to be decided on his mere ipse dixit, but must be proved as any ordinary fact would be proved, before the court could grant the relief of stay. It was also very feebly stated that under S.32 of the Act there was no power in the court to grant a stay of the suit.

4. The expression "land" occurring in the two places in S.32 was substituted for the expression "holding" which occurred previously, by the amendment Act 35 of 1969. This substitution was in accordance with the suggestion thrown out by a learned judge of this Court in Kurien v. Chacko (1965 KLT. 468). The view has been taken that even without this amendment the same result should have followed on the language of the words used in the Section. (See Kadir Mohammed v. Augusthy 1969 KLT. 739).

5. Whether the question of tenancy for the purpose of the above section must be proved in the normal way before the Court or is to be established on merely primafacie considerations, presents cross-currents of judicial thought. A Division Bench of this Court construing the provisions of a sister enactment, viz. S.8 of the Prevention of Eviction Act, 1966, took the view in Job Alias Kochukutty v. Abraham Tharakan (1968 KLT. 23), that the Court should at least be prima facie satisfied that the person in question was a tenant. The Section there construed enjoined the Court not to proceed with the suit till the record of rights was prepared, if a person represents that he is a tenant or the holder of a kudiyiruppu or kudikidappu etc. The question was whether a mere representation by the tenant would attract the section, or whether a prima facie proof of the status would suffice, or whether there should be full proof of such tenancy in the normal way. A Division Bench, of which one of us (the Chief Justice) was a member, observed thus:

"A court is not an automation but a judicial functionary whenever controversies are present. There can be no doubt