The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Land Tribunal's powers to grant injunctions or make interlocutory orders are limited to implementing the provisions of the Act or the rules.

1. The question for consideration in this case is whether the Land Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass the order in question (Ext. P-1). Petitioner filed an application under S.31 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act I of 1964) for fixation of fair rent. He also filed a petition for restraining the respondents from entering into possession of item No. 6 of the properties scheduled to his petition. Respondents I to 3 filed a petition praying that the petitioner may be restrained by an injunction from entering into item No. 6. The Land Tribunal after considering these petitions passed an order finding that the petitioner has not succeeded in proving a prima facie case of possession and therefore the respondents "will continue to be in possession of the item on depositing an amount of Rs. 200, as security amount for their being allowed to be in possession and enjoyment of the item, failing which further appropriate orders will be passed on the petitions". About the possession and the status of the petitioner, so far as items 1 to 5 are concerned there is no dispute. As regards item No. 6 it was contended by respondents 1 to 3 that the petitioner is not a tenant.

2. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Land Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the order under R.60, of the rules framed under the Act. R.60 provides:

"60. Powers of the Land Tribunals:

(1) For the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Act of these rules, the Land Tribunal shall have power to issue commissions, grant injunctions, appoint receivers and make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Tribunal to be just and necessary to meet the ends of justice

(2) the Land Tribunal shall have power to allow amendments of petitions or applications made before it, in accordance with the procedure laid down therefore in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908".

It is clear from the rule that a Land Tribunal has power to grant injunctions or to make such other interlocutory orders, only to implement the provisions of the Act or the rules. Here, the application was one for fixation of fair rent and I am not satisfied that making of the order in question would in any way conduce to the implementation of the provisions of the Act or the rules. The function of the Land Tribunal was only to decide the question before it, namely, whether the petitioner was entitled to have the fair rent fixed and if he was so entitled, the amount at which it ought to be fixed. For that purpose, it was open to the Tribunal under S.101 (3) to go into the question whether the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted between the parties in respect of the item. When the Tribunal makes a finding that the relationship between the parties is that of landlord and tenant and fixes the fair rent, S.125 of the Act precludes a suit challenging the order. But it may not follow that a civil court is not competent to adjudicate the question whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties for other purposes. S.101 (3) only says that it shall be competent to the Tribunal to decide the question whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant for the purposes of the Act. The decision on the question of the relationship is only incidental to the decision of the issue for fixation of fair rent. I do not think that for implementing the provisions of the Act or the rules, it was necessary for the Tribunal to have passed the order in question.

3. Petitioner's counsel brought to my attention the decision in O. P. No 3094 of 1965 by Raman Nayar, J. holding that Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant an injunction at the instance of a tenant, who had filed an application for fixation of fair rent. I think the reasoning of the learned judge will apply to this case also.

I allow the writ petition by quashing Ext. P-1 order. No costs. Allowed.