second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Act 2 of 1965) for short ‘the Act‘ a Division Bench of this Court referred this matter to the Full Bench. Section 11(1) and second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act reads as follows: 11. Eviction of tenants:–(1) Notwlth-standing anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act: xx xx xx xx Provided further that where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the Rent Control Court shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide and if it records a finding to that effect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a Civil Court and such Court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in this section, notwithstanding that the Court finds that such denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded. 2. The Full Bench in Parthakumar
31. The second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act deals with denial of the title of the landlord and the claim of permanent tenancy. The expression ‘title’ is not defined in the Act. A mortgagee cannot claim paramount title and his title is only derivative. When the paramount title is admitted and derivative title is set up by tenant, it does not constitute the denial of title, when the landlord-tenant relationship is admitted. The tenant having admitted attornment and payment of rent to the landlord, even assuming that the tenant is a mortgagee in possession, he cannot contend that a Rent Control Petition against him is not maintainable. Such a contention would not amount to a denial of title within the meaning of the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act. The Rent Control Court is competent and has jurisdiction to decide the question whether there is a subsisting landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. All ancillary questions to arrive at a just decision on that issue, evidently comes within the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court.
taken by the counter petitioner for a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- from 1970 and has executed a rent deed dated 10-11-1970, Ext.A1 deed. Counter petitioner has committed default in payment of rent for the last seven years and he has no building of his own in the city and he wants the building for own use and, therefore, the rent control petition was filed. The counter petitioner alleged before the rent control Court that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and himself. It is also contended that Ext.A1 rent deed is not genuine and shall not be relied on. It is further contended that in an earlier rent control proceedings between the same parties, it was found that there is no landlord-tenant relationship and, therefore, the present petition filed is hit by res judicata and Section 15 of the Act. After consideration of the evidence, the Rent Control Court found that Ext.A2 deed is a genuine document. Present revision petitioner was examined as PW2 in a small cause suit filed by one Kanakamma and the very same rent deed executed by the counter petitioner in favour
marked by adducing evidence. The rent control Court in that case found that the landlord has got clear title over the property. Hence, denial of proprietary title is not bona fide, but, at the same time, it was also held that the petitioner failed to prove the landlord-tenant relationship. Since landlord-tenant relationship was not proved, the rent control petition was dismissed. That petition was also filed only under Section 11(2) and (3) of the Act. In appeal, the landlord tried to mark the present Ext.A1 deed by filing a petition. The appellate authority did not allow the landlord to produce the same as it was not produced before the rent control Court. Further, it was also observed that in the above alleged rent deed building number is mentioned as T.C. No. 12/71 whereas number of the petition schedule building is T.C. No. 13/121. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed after rejecting the petition to accept the rent deed as additional evidence as it was not marked in evidence before the Rent Controller and in view of the difference in the number of the building. The rent control Court