Judgment :- This revision petition is by defendants 2 to 6 and 11 in O. S. No. 48 of 1974, Sub Court, Badagara. That Court by its finding on issue 21 in the suit held that the suit is liable to be stayed under S.125(3) of Act I of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969, but only at the final decree stage, and that the court at the stage of the preliminary decree had to determine the other questions and to pass a preliminary decree. It is this order that has been challenged in revision. 2. For the revision petitioner it has been contended that the view taken by the learned judge is against the plain and clear mandate of S.125(3) of the Land Reforms Act. The said Section reads: 125(3). If in any suit or other proceedings any question regarding rights of a tenant or of a kudikidappukaran (including a question as to whether a person is a tenant or a kudikidappukaran) arises, the civil court shall stay the suit or other proceeding and refer such question to the Land Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the land or part thereof is situate together with the relevant records for the decision of that question only." On the language of the Section it seems clear enough that whenever any question regarding the rights of a tenant arises, the Court is to stay the suit. The two things to be noted are: [1] that the liability to stay arises whenever a question regarding rights of a tenant springs up for consideration; and [2] that on such question cropping up for consideration, the court is bound to stay the suit and not any portion thereof or any aspect of the same. Having regard to Order XX, R.18 of the CPC. which provides for decrees for partition, and the object and purpose of a preliminary decree, we are of the view that at the stage of passing the preliminary decree the rights of the parties have to be settled and therefore a question regarding the tenancy rights set up in this case by defendants 5 and 10 (as we are told) does arise fur consideration. The suit therefore is liable to be stayed. The suit therefore is liable to be stayed. The court below was wrong in directing proceedings for the preliminary decree to go on and in ordering that the stay may operate only at the stage of the final decree. 3. Our attention was drawn to an unreported judgement of our learned brother Eradi J. in C.R.P. 808 of 1973. The learned judge there seems to have taken the view that there in a suit for partition there are a large number of parties and a large number of items of properties, and tenancy right is set up only in regard to just a few items, there will be no need to stay the entire proceedings in the partition suit, and that proceedings for passing a preliminary decree might well be allowed to go on leaving open the question of tenancy set up in respect of a few items by some parties to be determined and decided at the final decree stage. With respect, we are unable to accept this view, having regard to the statutory mandate in S.125 (3) of the Act. If a question of tenancy arises and we have no doubt that it does arise in a suit for partition even at the stage of preliminary decree where tenancy rights are claimed by any of the parties, the suit is liable to be stayed under S.125(3) That position has recently been reaffirmed (not certainly with particular reference to a decree for partition) by a Full Bench of this Court in Lissy v. Kuttan (1976 KLT. 571). In view of the said decision, the principle is clear enough, and the same only fortifies the view that we have taken. 4. We allow this revision petition, set aside the order of the Sub Judge and send back the matter to that Court for being stayed under S.125(3) and for reference of the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.