Radhakrishnan, J.

Would the bar under Sec. 11(9) of Act 2 of 1965 affect an application filed under Sec. 11 of the Act if the parties are governed by an unregistered lease deed is the interesting question that has come up for consideration in these cases.

2. Tenants are the revision petitioners in these cases. Petitions for eviction preferred under Sections. 11 (2) (b), 11 (4) (ii) and 11 (4) (v) were resisted by the tenants under Sec. 11 (9) of the act on the ground that where the tenancy is for a specific period agreed to between the landlord and the tenant, landlord is not entitled to apply before the Rent Control Court for an order of eviction before the expiry of that period.

3. C.R.P. No. 1628 of 1997 arises out of R.C.P. No. 2 of 1990, a petition filed by the landlord under Sections 11(2) (b) and 11(4) (ii) of the Act. Parties are governed by Ext. A2 rent agreement dated 5.9.1988. Room was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 750/-. Rent Control Petition was filed on 3.2.1990 claiming arrears of rent under Sec. 11(2)(b) and the Rent Control Court found that tenant had committed default in payment of rent from 5.10.1988 onwards till 31.12.1990 at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month and ordered eviction under Sec. 11 (2) (b). Rent Control Court also allowed the plea of the landlord that the tenant has used the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility, materially and permanently. Appellate Authority also confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court.

4. C.R.P. No. 1764 of 1999 arises out of R.C.P.No. 35 of 1995 which is a petition filed by the landlord under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11 (4) (v). Parties are governed by Ext. A1 rent deed dated 17.1.1994. Schedule room was rented out on a monthly rent of RS. 400/-. Landlord claimed arrears for the period from January 1995 to July 1995. Rent Control Court noticed that there is no arrears of rent. Consequently claim under Sec. 11(2) (b) was rejected. Noticing that the tenant had ceased to occupy the building continuously for a period of six months without reasonable cause the Rent Control Court ordered eviction. Appeal filed against that order was rejected.

5. C.R.P. No. 1985 of 1999 arises out of the order in I.A. No. 291 of 1998 in R.C.P. No. 30 of 1997. I.A.No. 291 of 1998 was filed for setting aside the ex parte order. Rent Control Court found no reason to set aside the order and dismissed the application. Appellate Authority confirmed the said order against which this revision was filed by the tenant.

6. Ext. A2 unregistered lease deed dated 5.9.1988 governs the parties in C.R.P.No. 1628 of 1997. Ext. A2 would indicate that the petition schedule buildings was let out for a period of 15 years for the purpose of carrying on the business of selling gold and silver ornaments. Rate of rent shown in the document is Rs. 750/- per month, which had to be paid by the tenant on or before fifth of every month. Rent control petition was filed on 3.2.1990 before the expiry of fifteen years from the date of agreement. C.R.P. No. 1764 of 1999 parties are governed by Ext. Al rent chit dated 17.1.1994 Rate of rent fixed was Rs. 400/- per month and the period of lease is for five years. Rent Control petition was filed on 24.7.1995. In C.R.P. No. 1985 of 1999 also parties are the same as in C.R.P. No. 1764 of 1999 and are governed by the same rent chit dated 17.1.1994. In that case rent control petition was filed on 4.7.1997 within a period of five years.

7. The question that is posted for consideration as we have already mentioned, is whether tenant could use the unregistered lease deed as a defence under Sec. 11 (9) of the Act of defeat a claim raised by the landlord within the period specified in the lease deed for eviction of the tenant on any of the grounds mentioned in Sec. 11 of the Act, 1965 is an Act enacted to regulate the leasing of buildings and to control the rent of such buildings in the State of Kerala. The reason for the enactment is to regulate the