resorting to circumlocuted route via the Land Tribunal. In Sundaran (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that unless the question of tenancy legally arises, there is no obligation for the civil Court to make a reference. If the question of tenancy or kudikidappu genuinely and legally arises, the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to proceed further. Similarly, if the denial of title of the landlord is found to be bonafide, then also, the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction. Both situation affects the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court. But the procedure to be followed in both eventuality is distinct and different. Where the tenant claims kudikidappu right, the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction even to proceed further as the question has to be referred to the Land Tribunal as envisaged in S.125(3) of the KLR Act and the Rent Control Court has to stay the proceedings before the reference is made. On the other hand, in the latter eventuality, the Rent Control Court has the power to determine its own jurisdiction by deciding whether the denial of title is bonafide. In a case where a reference is made u/s 125(3), after the reference is answered, the Rent Control Court has to pass an order taking into consideration the answer of the
