K. T. Sankaran, J.

The question of law involved in this Revision is whether the contention of the respondent in a Rent Control Petition that he has entered into an agreement for sale of the petition schedule bulging with the erstwhile landlord could be termed as a denial of title of the landlord coming within the meaning of the second proviso to S.11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The further question is whether the respondent in the Rent Control Petition who admittedly attorned to the landlord and agreed to pay revised rate of rent after the landlord purchased the building, could set up a case that the tenant is a mortgagee in possession and whether it would amount to denial of title of the landlord, under the second proviso to S.11(1) of the Act.

2. The facts in brief are the following: The respondent in this Rent Control Revision filed R.C.P.No.98 of 2003, on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam against the petitioner herein under S.11(3) of the Act. The landlady/respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as ‘the landlord’) stated in the Rent Control Petition thus: “The respondent is the tenant of a residential building, bearing No.41