ORDER : S. Krishnan Unni, J. In a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of a tenant, the tenant claimed benefit under S. 106 of the Land Reforms Act. Consequently an issue was framed and the matter was referred to the Land Tribunal concerned. That order is challenged in revision. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner challenges in this revision the said order on the ground that there is no reasonable prospects for the tenant to prove his case before the Land Tribunal and relies on Sundaran v. Mohammed Koya, 1995 (2) KLT 115 to argue that the court has to look into the question whether the case advanced by the tenant is bonafide or not. In this case undoubtedly there is relief of eviction asked for and the tenant has raised a claim under S. 106 of the Land Reforms Act. S.125(3) of the Act lays down that when such question of tenancy arises, that has to he referred to the Land Tribunal. 2. In view of the series of decisions of the Supreme Court, the latest one is reported in Poovollaparambil Chathu v. V.P. Sudheer, AIR 1999 SC 327 , the jurisdiction to decide those questions being entirely on the Land Tribunal, the civil court has no jurisdiction to decide such questions. If that be so, this court will be committing jurisdictional error if it is to consider whether the case advanced by the tenant is of reasonable or genuine. The question for consideration is only whether such an issue arises front the pleadings of the parties. Once such an issue arises, the civil court is bound to refer the same to the Land Tribunal. Therefore, there will be a direction to the Land Tribunal, Kottayam to dispose of the answer to the reference as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of reference in that court or from today, whichever is later. With the above observations, the C.R.P. is dismissed.