S. Sankarasubban, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment in R.C. A. No. 11 of 1996 on the file of the District Court, Kollam. The facts of the case are as follows:

2. Counter petitioner in R.C.O.P. No. 1 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kottarakkara is the revision petitioner. Respondent had also field petition for eviction under Sections 11 (2) (b), 11 (3) and 11 (4) (ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act"). The allegations in the petition are as follows: Petitioner in the present revision petition took the schedule building as per Ext.A1 rent deed dated 15.7. 1985 for a period of six months agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- . But the rent was paid only for the months of August and September and thereafter, rent was defaulted. The landlord, who was residing in Idukki in connection with his job executed a general power of attorney in favour of E.K. Bhasu and the said Bhasu filed O.S. No. 179 of 1986 before the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara for eviction of the present petitioner from the petition schedule building with arrears of rent and that suit was decreed as prayed for. Against that decree, the petitioner filed A.S. No.74 of 1988 and that appeal was dismissed and against the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner preferrd S.A. No. 953 of 1991.

3. At the time of filing this Civil Revision petitions, the appeal was pending before the Court. Meanwhile, Buidling Lease and Rent Control Act was extended to the place where the building is situate, i.e. Ezhukone Pnachayat with effect from 27.2.1989. So, the landlord filed R.C. O.P. No.1 of 1993 before the Rent Control Court on 20.2.1993. The eviction petition was resisted stating that the petition is not maintainable. There is no landlord -tenant relationship. It was contended that an extent of 37 1/2 cents of land belonged to the petitioner and his wife and they executed a sale deed on 10.3. 1983 in favour of one Rajasekharan Nair as security for the amount of loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-, obtained from him and as demanded by him. Out of the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- the respondent repaid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and the entire interest. The sale deed in favour of the landlord is a sham document and the other ground of eviction also denied.

4. The Rent Control Court allowed the evication petition under sections 11 (2) (b) and 11 (3) of the Act. But the ground under Section 11 (4) (ii) was rejected. Against that an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Against that the present revision is filed.

5. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that one of the grounds considered by the Appellate Court and the Rent Control Court was regarding the question whether the landlord tenant relationship existed between the petitioner and the counter petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitoner submitted that on the basis of Exts. A9 to A11, both the courts took the view that the position is concluded by judgment in O.S. No. 179 of 1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that O.S. No. 179 of 1986 was filed for evicting the petitioner with arrears of rent. At that time, the Rent Control has not been extended to Ezhukone Panchayat. In the suit, the petitioner has raised question regarding the title of the landlord. The title was found in favour of the landlord and eviction was ordered. Ext. A9 is the judgment. Against Ext. A9 judgment, the petitioner preferred A.S. No. 74 of 1988. That case was disposed of by judgment dated 12.11. 1991. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the time the judgment was delivered, the Rent Control Act had been extended to Ezhukone Panchayat and hence, the judgment of the Appellate Court is without jurisdiction. In this context, it is worth nothing that the Appellate Court also found that there was landlord -tenant relationship between the petitioner and