The order of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Ernakulam allowing I.A. 1305 of 1995 in I.A.688 of 1994 in O.s.No.41 of 1986 is under challenge in this Civil Revision petition. What the Sub Court did under the impugned order was to set aside an order of eviction passed on the ground of arrears of rent invoking the powers under Section 11(2) (c) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

2. I have heard the arguments of Sri. Chacko George, learned Senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-landlady and Sri. M.P. Ramnath, learned counsel for the respondents-tenants. Having regard to the elaborate arguments addressed before me by counsel on both sides, I feel it necessary to give a resume of the facts.

3. The suit property consists of a residential building together with 45 cents of land. According to the revision petitioner-plaintiff, the suit property (hereinafter referred to as the schedule building) was let out to Padmanabhan, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in 1971. Padmanabhan did series of acts in defiance of the plaintiff’s title over the property. He could obtain a document of conveyance from certain relatives of the plaintiff’s predecessor as though they were having fractional interests over the property. Under the conveyance, one-third rights over the property was purportedly conveyed to Padmanbhan. He was able to have transfer of the registry in respect of 15 cents from out of the property in his favour in revenue records on the basis of the conveyance. This was got done surreptitiously. Once he was able to do that, he stopped paying rent and thus rent fell into arrears since November, 1981. Padmanabhan began contending that he himself is the owner of the schedule building. He published a notification in the Mathrubhoomi Daily on 11.4.1982 setting up rival title over the schedule building and the entire 45 cents in himself and warning all people from dealing with anybody else in respect of the property. He started obstructing the plaintiff from collecting usufructs from the property on the strength of his claimed title. Under the above circumstances, the plaintiff issued Ext.A12 termination notice on 21.4.1982. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed R.C.P. No.69 of 1982 on the ground of arrears of rent since November, 1981 and also on the ground of bona fide own occupation of the building by her daughter. Sri. Padmanabhan set up rival title in defence of the R.C.P. He denied the plaintiff’s title. The Rent Control Court found that Padmanabhan’s denial of the landlady’s title was bona fide and dismissed the R.C.P. referring the plaintiff to the civil court.

4. Even before a suit could be filed against Padmanabhan before the civil court, he passed away. Therefore, the suit was filed against the eight respondents herein who are the legal representatives of Padmanabhan. The following were the reliefs sought for in the suit:-

1. Recovery of possession of the building on the strength of title.

2. Recovery of rent at Rs.120/- per mensem for three years from 1.2.1983 to 31.1.1986. (Significantly, by the time of filing the suit, rent for 15 months covering the period from November, 1981 till January, 1983 had become time-barred).

3. Damages for use and occupation of the house from the date of suit till date of recovery at the rate of Rs.120/- per mensem.

4. Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of the property.

On 13.11.1986 the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The respondents preferred A.S.NO.61 of 1989 before the District Court. That appeal was dismissed by the District Court, that court clarifying the decree of eviction passed by the trial court to be an order under Section 11(2) (b) of the Rent Control Act.

5. A Second Appeal was preferred to this Court by the respondents as S.A.No.345 of 1990. Along with the Second Appeal, C.M.P.NO.695 of 1990 was moved for stay of execution. This Court on 1.6.1990 passed