1. The only point that really arises in this revision petition is as to the applicability of S.4A which was introduced by Act 9 of 1967 into Act 1 of 1964. The suit out of which this revision arises is one for redemption of a possessory mortgage. The mortgagee, encouraged by S.4A, requested that the proceedings be stayed because he claimed to be a deemed tenant within the meaning of S.4A. It is trite law that before a person can claim to be a tenant within the meaning of S.4 A he must fulfil four conditions, three of which are, at any rate, prima facie answers in favour of the mortgagee in the present case The disputed qualification is the one relating to the property comprised in the mortgage being waste land at the time of the mortgage.

2. Even at the outset I may state that the learned Munsiff was in error in pronouncing finally on the question as to whether the defendants were tenants under the Kerala Land Reforms Act because that was a conclusion to be reached after detailed investigation at the trial of the suit.

All that the Court has to consider in a stay petition is a prima facie case as to whether the petitioner before it is a tenant or not. It has been so held