Judgment :- 1. The defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of 28 cents of land with a shed therein is the revision petitioner. The property, according to the petitioner, was leased out to his father in the year 1100 M. E. His father who was a business man dealing in hardware constructed a shed therein and was using the land and the building for his business. After the death of the father, the petitioner is continuing his business and using the land and godown. In the written statement filed by him, be claimed fixity of tenure under S.13 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and also contended that in any event, he was entitled to the right conferred under S 106 of the Act which deals with land leased out for commercial purposes. Issues 5 and 6 relate to the claim put forward by the petitioner that he is a tenant entitled to fixity of tenure under the Act Issue No. 7 relates to the claim of the petitioner to the benefits of S.106 of the Act. As per order dated 9-10-74, the trial court stayed the proceedings and referred issues Nos. 5 to 7 to the Munsiff-Land Tribunal, Quilon for entering findings thereon The above order was confirmed by this Court in CRP. 1472 of 1974. After a chequered process, the records were received by the Special Deputy Collector-Land Tribunal, Alleppey. He returned the records to the Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum stating that under the notification of the Government in force, he had no authority to fry and dispose of the case. On 30178. the Munsiff issued an order to the following effect: "On going through the records. I am of the view that issue No. 7 has to be decided by this court itself; and that issue Nos. 5 and 6 alone need be referred to the Land Tribunal for its decision. Hence send the relevant records to the Land Tribunal, Trivandrum for its finding on issues 5 and 6 alone Await receipt of records with finding of the Land Tribunal, Trivandrum on issues 5 and 6". It is this order that is challenged in the revision petition. 2. Hence send the relevant records to the Land Tribunal, Trivandrum for its finding on issues 5 and 6 alone Await receipt of records with finding of the Land Tribunal, Trivandrum on issues 5 and 6". It is this order that is challenged in the revision petition. 2. The contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that the Munsiff's order excluding issue No. 7 in the reference to the Land Tribunal is unsustainable in law because under S.125 (3), the jurisdiction to decide whether a particular person is a tenant entitled to the benefits of S.106 of the Land Reforms Act is vested exclusively on the Land Tribunal. 3. There is much weight in the contention. The relevant portion of S.106 of the Land Reforms Act reads: "106. Special provisions relating to leases for commercial or industrial purposes (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in any other law, or in any contract, or in any order or decree of court, where on any land leased for commercial or industrial purpose, the lessee has constructed buildings for such commercial or industrial purpose before 20th May, 1967 he shall not be liable to be evicted from such land, but shall be liable to pay rent under the contract of tenancy and such rent shall be liable to be varied every twelve years." It is true that the word used in the section is lessee and not tenant. The Act does not define the words 'lease 'and' lessee'. Under S.2(57) of the Act, a tenant means any person who has paid or has agreed to pay rent or other consideration for his being allowed to possess and to enjoy any land by a person entitled to lease that land. There cannot be any doubt that a person entitled to relief under S.106 of the Act comes within the definition of tenant in S.2(57). It is by virtue of the exemption in S.3(iii) of the Act that leases of land or of buildings or of both specifically granted for industrial or commercial purposes are exempted from the operation of Chapter II of the Act. Chapter II of the Ad takes in S.3 to 80G. The exemption does not extend to S.125 which deals with jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to claims of tenancy. Chapter II of the Ad takes in S.3 to 80G. The exemption does not extend to S.125 which deals with jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to claims of tenancy. Under S.125(3), if in any suit or other proceeding any question regarding rights of a tenant or or a a Kudikidappukaran (including a question as to whether a person is a tenant or kudikidappukaran) arises, the civil court is to 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 The section is widely worded and includes disputes whether a person is a tenant in relation to claims other than those covered by Chapter II of the Act. Since the persons on whom the rights under S.106 are conferred are tenants under the Act, the dispute whether a person who claims such relief is a tenant or lessee falls under S.125(3). S 125(1) has taken away the jurisdiction of the Civil court to decide any question which under the Act is required to be settled, decide 1 or dealt with or to be determined by the Land Tribunal The combined effect of the above provisions is that the Land Tribunal alone is competent to decide whether the defendant in this case is entitled to the benefits under S.106 of the Land Reforms Act. Infact, the original order of the Munsiff was to the above effect and that order having been confirmed in revision by this court, it was unnecessary for the Munsiff to have reopened the matter again and decided in a different way. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. The order of the Munsiff dated 30th of January, 1978 reserving the consideration of issue No. 7 to himself will stand vacated The issue will be referred to the Land Tribunal for its decision under S.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The parties will bear their respective costs. Allowed.