Judgment :- 1. Defendants 3 to 5, the legal representative of the first defendant are the appellants. 2. When the plaintiff was a minor, his grandmother and mother acting as guardian entrusted the plaint property, about 54 cents of land, to one Chockalingam Pillai for the construction of a Cinema Theatre on 19-11-1947 (Ext. BI). The rights of Chockalingam Pillai became vested in the 1st defendant and now have devolved on defendants 3 to 5 after his death. The plaintiff contends that the transaction is not a lease, but only a licence. He therefore filed the suit for a direction that he be permitted to deposit Rs. 51,309/-, the value of the theatre payable to the 1st defendant and then allow him to be in exclusive possession of the property and for other reliefs; 3. The first defendant resisted the claim contending that the transaction was a lease of land for a commercial purpose, the lessee constructed a Cinema Theatre for such commercial purpose and therefore is entitled to the protection under S.106 of Act 1 of 1964. There was also a further contention that the land was registered as Sree Pandaravaka land in the revenue records and the plaintiff's rights, if any, have been lost by orders passed under the Sree Pandaravaka Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1971, Act 20 of 1971. 4. The court below found that the first defendant was in possession only as a licencee and not as a lessee, he was not entitled to the benefit of S.106 of Act 1/1964 and that as he was thus not a landholder, Act 20/ 71 could not divest the plaintiff's right and vest it in the first defendant. 5. Even though the appellants have assailed all the findings of the lower court, their learned counsel, Sri. C. K. Sivasankara Panicker placed on the forefront of his submission a question of jurisdiction relying on the Full Bench ruling of five judges in Kasava Bhat v. Subraya Bhat (1979 KLT. 766). He contended that the court below had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute regarding tenancy and the matter should have been referred to the Land Tribunal under S.125(3) of Act 1/1964; the lower court's finding that there was only a licence and not a, lease was thus without jurisdiction. We are considering only this contention in this appeal. 6. The plaintiff's counsel, Sri. We are considering only this contention in this appeal. 6. The plaintiff's counsel, Sri. Vyasan Poti met this contention by stating that there need not be any reference to the Land Tribunal when the contention is based on S.106 of the Act. He elaborates by explaining that the Land Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide only those disputes which are expressly required by the Act to be decided by the Tribunal as contemplated in S.125(1) and no provision of the Act enjoins the Land Tribunal to decide whether a person is a tenant under S.106 of the Act or not. If, therefore, the Land Tribunal has no such jurisdiction, there can be no reference under S.125(3) Moreover S.125(3) only prescribes the procedure while S 125(1) affects jurisdiction and a procedural law cannot confer jurisdiction. In any case he contended that this court, in appeal can decide the question of tenancy. 7. Let us read S.106 and 125 of Act 1 of 1964. "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 the 20th May, 1961, 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. Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, (a) 'lessee' includes a legal representative or an assignee of the lessee; and (b) "building" means a permanent or a temporary building and includes a shed. (1A) The lessor or the lessee may apply to such authority as may be prescribed for varying the rent referred to in sub-section (1), and thereupon such authority may, after taking into consideration such matters as may be prescribed and after giving the lessor and the lessee an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders on the application as it deems fit. (2) If, between the 18th December, 1957 and the date of commencement of this Act, any decree or order of court has been executed and any person dispossessed by delivery, such person shall, on application before the Land Tribunal, be entitled to restoration of possession: Provided that, before restoration, such person shall be liable to pay (i) the compensation paid by the landlord for any improvements in the land and subsisting at the time of restoration; (ii) the compensation for any improvements effected subsequent to the delivery: Provided further that he shall not be entitled to restoration if the property has passed on to the possession of a bona fide transferee for value. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1), sub-section (1A) and sub-section (2) shall apply to lands owned or held by the Government of Kerala or a local authority. Explanation For the purposes of this sub-section, "local authority" includes the Cochin Port Trust and any University established by an Act of the Kerala State Legislature. 125. Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts. (1) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with or to be determined by the Land Tribunal or the appellate authority or the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board or the Government or an officer of the Government: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to proceedings pending in any court at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969. (2) No order of the Land Tribunal or the appellate authority or the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board or the Government or an officer of the Government made under this Act shall be questioned in any civil court, except as provided in this Act. (3) If in any suit or other proceeding 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. (4) The Land Tribunal shall decide the question referred to it under sub-section (3) and return the records together with its decision to the civil court. (5) The civil court shall then proceed to decide the suit or other proceeding accepting the decision of the Land Tribunal on the question referred to it. (6) The decision of the Land Tribunal on the question referred to it shall, for the purposes of appeal, be deemed to be part of the finding of the civil court. (7) No civil court shall have power to grant injunction in any suit or other proceeding referred to in sub-section (3) restraining any person from entering into or occupying or cultivating any land or kudikidappu or to appoint a receiver for any property in respect of which a question referred to in that sub-section has arisen, till such question is decided by the Land Tribunal, and any such injunction granted or appointment made before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, or before such question has arisen, shall stand cancelled. (8) In this section, "civil court" shall include a Rent Control Court as defined in the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965." 8. While S.125(1) declared an absolute finality to the orders of the authorities under the Act, and ousts the jurisdiction of the civil courts in respect of matters specifically entrusted to them, S 125(3) fastens only a limited finality to the order of the Land Tribunal and provides only a partial exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil courts. S 125(3) also thus affects jurisdiction in that the trial court cannot decide the question of tenancy; but has necessarily to refer the matter to the Land Tribunal and it is then bound by that finding. This finding is open to challenge at the appellate stage, when by a statutory fiction, the finding of the Land Tribunal is deemed a finding of the civil court. S.125(3) cannot be read in isolation, but shall be construed as part of a provision defining, limiting and even excluding the jurisdiction of the civil court. 9. S.125(3) itself confers jurisdiction on the Land Tribunal. There is no necessity to search for power in the Land Tribunal in any other section of the Act. S.125(3) cannot be read in isolation, but shall be construed as part of a provision defining, limiting and even excluding the jurisdiction of the civil court. 9. S.125(3) itself confers jurisdiction on the Land Tribunal. There is no necessity to search for power in the Land Tribunal in any other section of the Act. Moreover, S.106, (IA) and (2), gives authority to the Land Tribunal to vary the Tent and also to restore possession in certain cases. This power necessarily implies that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide whether there is a lease protected under S 106 or not, for, it is an incidental and ancillary power, necessary for the proper exercise of the jurisdiction. The contention therefore that the Land Tribunal has not been invested with jurisdiction to decide a dispute arising under S.106 of the Act cannot be accepted... . 10. The other contention that S.125(3) only relates to procedure and does not affect the jurisdiction has only to be rejected in view of the Full Bench decision of this court in Kesava Bhat v. Subraya Bhat (1979 KLT. 766) where it is held thus: "If a question of tenancy arose, the civil court decree without reference to the Tribunal would be without jurisdiction, and therefore null and void." 11. The court below was therefore bound in this case to refer the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal, for issue 2 reads thus: "Whether the document dated 19 111947 is a lease or licence?"' A decision without reference is therefore without jurisdiction and the decree has been given only on the basis of the finding that the transaction is a licence. Thus the entire decree has to be set aside and the matter sent back to the trial court. The trial court will refer the matter to the Land Tribunal under S.125 (3) for its finding whether the 1st defendant, and on his death his legal representatives defendants 3 to 5, are entitled to the rights of tenancy under S.106 of Act 1 of 1964. 12. A request of the first respondent that this court itself may decide the question cannot also be accepted. The finding of the court below has to be completely ignored as it was made without jurisdiction. 12. A request of the first respondent that this court itself may decide the question cannot also be accepted. The finding of the court below has to be completely ignored as it was made without jurisdiction. Even though the appellate court may have jurisdiction to decide the question of tenancy, it is not proper to do so in the circumstances of the case. 13. The appeal is therefore allowed, the judgment of the lower court is set aside and the matter is sent back to the lower court for a fresh decision after referring the question, regarding the rights of the first defendant, and on his death, his legal representatives defendants 3 to 5, as tenants under Act 1 of 1964, to the Land Tribunal, which has jurisdiction over the area where the property is situate. When the matter is referred, the Land Tribunal can allow the parties to adduce fresh evidence, consider the pleadings and evidence already on record and enter a finding untrammelled by what has been said by the trial court in the judgment now set aside. The parties will bear their own costs in this appeal and the appellants will be entitled to refund of the court fee paid. Parties will appear in the lower court on 27th March, 1984.