Judgment :- 1. Before the Land Tribunal a petition was filed for fixation of fair rent by the present revision petitioners on 26-8-1967. On 11-11-1968 the landlord filed a suit O.S. 122 of 1968 for recovery of property on the allegation that the defendants trespassed into the property on 28 91968. The tenant thereupon filed I.A. No. 724 of 1970 under S.32 of the Land Reforms Act, stating that the suit is not entertainable, and prayed for its dismissal. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that S.32 will not apply to suits already filed and will apply only to suits filed after the coming into force of the amended Act 35 of 1969. This view is not correct, because S.108 (3) of Act 35 of 1969 provides: "All suits, applications, appeals, revisions, reviews, proceedings in execution of decrees and other proceedings with respect to any matter arising under and provided for by the principal Act. pending before courts, tribunals, officers or other authorises at the commencement of this section, shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act." It is clear from the above that the bar of S.32 will apply to suits filed already and pending at the time Act 35 of of 1969 cane into force. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that S.32 can apply only to suit for eviction of a cultivating tenant and in the present case, according to him the defendants being not cultivating tenants, the bar will not apply. In this connection, reliance was placed by him on the definition of "eviction" as given, in S.2 (2) wherein it is said that "eviction" means the recovery of possession of land from a tenant or the recovery of a kudikidappu from the occupation of the kudikidappukaran. According to the learned counsel, the defendants in this case are trespassers and as such the suit is for recovery of property and not for "eviction" as contemplated by sub-section (12) of S.2. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala 1970 KLT. 659 (FB.) Para.65 is a direct answer to this contention. According to the learned counsel, the defendants in this case are trespassers and as such the suit is for recovery of property and not for "eviction" as contemplated by sub-section (12) of S.2. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala 1970 KLT. 659 (FB.) Para.65 is a direct answer to this contention. In that paragraph the Full Bench deals with the question as follows: "S. 32 says that 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. This section is obviously designed to prevent the institution of suits by landowners as a counterblast to applications by tenants for the determination of fair rent. We take is that the word,'eviction' here has not the meaning attached to it by S.2 (12) of the Act, namely, recovery of possession of land from a tenant, and that the section applies also to suits for recovery of possession on the allegation of trespass. Such a suit implies that the applicant for determination of fair rent is in possession of the land, and that being so, we can see no objection to a suit for eviction bring stayed pending disposal of the fair rent application. While there might be false claims of tenancy there might equally be false denials of tenancy. Under S.101 (3) of the Act, the Land Tribunal is competent to decide on claims of tenancy for the purpose of disposing of applications for the determination of fair rent. That being so, it is desirable that there should not be parallel proceedings in a civil court, although ultimately the dispute might be one for a civil court to decide. If suits are allowed pending the disposal of the fair rent application, such suits might be filed by way of harassment and will, in any case, delay the proceedings before the Tribunal". A suit of the type which is before me cannot, therefore, be entertained. The suit having already been entertained, I would direct that it shall remain adjourned 'sine die', without any action, until proceeding before the Land Tribunal is concluded. A suit of the type which is before me cannot, therefore, be entertained. The suit having already been entertained, I would direct that it shall remain adjourned 'sine die', without any action, until proceeding before the Land Tribunal is concluded. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge is hence set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff, as indicated above, will stand adjourned sine die. The revision petition is disposed of as above.