Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

1. Under challenge in this revision filed by the alleged tenant (respondent in RCP No.117/2001 of Thrissur Rent Control Court) is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority setting aside the order of the Rent Control Court referring the Rent Control Petition to the Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for getting a finding as to whether the revision petitioner's claim that he is entitled to get immunity from eviction (permanent tenancy) under Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act is correct.

2. The rent control petition was instituted by the landlord seeking eviction on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b) and bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11 (3). The revision petitioner contended that he is a lessee of the land. It was contended that the building in question was constructed by him on the land leased out by the respondent for commercial purpose and he is entitled to the benefit of Section 106 of the KLR Act. The Rent Control Court took the view that a question of tenancy arises for consideration and stayed proceedings under Section 125(3) and referred the rent control petition to the Land Tribunal having jurisdiction for getting a finding regarding the revision petitioner's eligibility for benefits under Section 106.

3. The learned Appellate Authority, on considering the appeal preferred by the landlord, has passed the impugned judgment setting aside the order of the Rent Control Court and directing that the records, which were in the meanwhile sent to the Land Tribunal, be called back, so that the Rent Control Court itself can take a decision on the issue immediately.

4. A reading of the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority will show that the learned Appellate Authority has relied on the judgment of this court in Govinda Panicker v. Sreedhara Warrier (2002 (2) KLT 43), wherein this court held that questions of tenancy, which are required to be answered under Section 125(3), are only such claims of tenancy which are within the purview of Section 13 and 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. According to this court, the claim under Section 106 is not a tenancy in that sense and therefore such claims need not be referred and can be decided by the civil court itself.

5. The argument, which was raised before us by Sri.M.K.Dileepkumar learned counsel for the revision petitioner, was that this is a case where the revision petitioner has raised a claim of permanent tenancy or permanent immunity from eviction in terms of provisos to Section 11 (1) of the Act 2 of 1965. According to the learned counsel, it is trite that when claim of permanent tenancy or permanent immunity from eviction is raised by a tenant facing eviction proceedings before the Rent Control Court, the Rent Control Court will cease to have jurisdiction and only the civil court will have jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel, the Rent Control Court is not a regular civil court and hence even if the learned Appellate Authority's decision to set aside the order of reference made to the Land Tribunal is right what the learned Appellate Authority should have done was to refer the issue to a competent civil court.

6. We have anxiously considered the submissions of Mr. Dileepkumar. This court in Govinda Panicker v. Sreedhara Warrier (cited supra) has held that the protection claimed by lessee under Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act is not a tenancy of the nature contemplated under Section 13 or Section 72 of the Land Reforms Act or a Kudikidappu right contemplated by Section 80B. It was accordingly, that this court took the view in Govinda Panicker's (cited supra) that claims for protection under Section 106 are not liable to be referred to the Land Tribunal. According to us, reasoning adopted by this court in taking such a view in the above case is quite sound. In fact, Mr.Deleep Kumar also did not argue before us that the revision petitioner's claim for pro