The main legal point established in the judgment is that a stay under S.8 of the Kerala Prevention of Eviction Act, 1966 and the direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer should not be denied simply because the plaintiff has not admitted that the defendant is a cultivating tenant, the holder of a kudiyiruppu or a kudikidappukaran. The court emphasized that a court is not bound to grant a stay under S.8 of the Act and issue the direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer simply because the defendant has claimed that he is a cultivating tenant, the holder of a kudiyiruppu or a kudikidappukaran.

1. The controversy in this petition centres round S.8 of the Kerala Prevention of Eviction Act, 1966. The long title of the Act shows that the enactment is intended "to provide for the prevention of eviction of cultivating tenants, holders of kudiyiruppus and kudikidappukars from their holdings, kudiyiruppus or kudikidappus, as the case may be, in the State of Kerala and for the restoration in certain cases of the possession thereof and for matters connected therewith".

2. S.8 of the Act deals with the stay of suits or other proceedings for eviction. It reads as follows:

"Where, in any suit or other proceeding for the eviction of a cultivating tenant, a holder of a kudiyiruppu or a kudikidappukaran, from his holding, kudiyiruppu or kudikidappu, as the case may be, whether pending at the commencement of this Act or instituted after such commencement, the cultivating tenant, or the holder of a kudiyiruppu or the kudikidappukaran, makes a representation to the court in which such suit or other proceeding is pending or instituted that no record of rights in respect of the holding or register of kudikidappukars in respect of the village in which the kudikidappu is situate, as the case may be, has been prepared, the court shall not proceed with the suit or proceeding until the record of rights in respect of the holding or the register of kudikidappukars, as the case may be, is prepared and made available to it and the court shall also by order direct the Revenue Divisional Officer having jurisdiction over the area in which the holding or the kudikidappu is situate to prepare a record of rights in respect of the holding, or, as the case may be, a register of kudikidappukars and to file the same in court, and the Revenue Divisional Officer shall cause the same to be prepared in the manner prescribed under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Kerala Act I of 1964)."

3. The order from which this petition arises referred to S.8 and said: "From a reading of the section it is clear that in order that the provisions of the section are to be applicable there should be the case of an admitted tenancy, kudikidappu or kudiyiruppu. In this case the plaintiff does not admit that the defendant is either a cultivating tenant, kudiyiruppukaran or kudikidappukaran Therefore so long as the fact whether the defendant petitioner is a kudikidappukaran, kudiyiruppukaran or a cultivating tenant is not determined, the suit cannot be stayed under S.8 of Act 12 of 1966. The petition is therefore dismissed."

4. A similar contention was urged in Cheriyan v. Harihara Iyer,1967 K. L. T. 508. That was a case where the plaint asserted that the defendant was a caretaker and the defendant claimed that he was not a caretaker but a cultivating tenant. Madhavan Nair J dealt with the contention as follows:

"Counsel for the plaintiff contends that S 8 of the Act is attracted only to a "suit or other proceeding for the eviction of a cultivating tenant ...from his holding", and that, therefore, unless the suit is laid as for eviction of a cultivating tenant from his holding the section would have no application. In other words, unless the plaint makes an admission that the defendant who is sought to be evicted, is a cultivating tenant, S.8 of the Act has no relevance. I am afraid if that interpretation be accepted S.8 of the Act will be devoid of any purpose, and the production of the Record of Rights will be of no use to the Court. As cautioned by the Supreme Court the purpose of the enactment has to be borne in mind in construing the provisions of an Act (Gurbax Singh v. State of Punjab A. I. R 1967 S. C. 502) and the words of an Act must be construed so as to give a sensible meaning to them (Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab A. I. R.1965 S. C. 666). It would not then be reasonable to hold that merely because the plaint in a suit for eviction of a tenant is framed as for eviction of a trespasser or a care-taker or a licensee, the Section must be excluded. The nature of