S.11(1) of Act 2 of 1965 only prohibits the execution of the decree and does not affect the jurisdiction of the civil court to pass a decree for eviction.

1. The question that arises for consideration in both these civil miscellaneous appeals is whether the civil court has got jurisdiction to entertain a suit for eviction of a tenant in the occupation of a building to which provisions of Act 2/65 are applicable. Divergent opinions are held by different High Courts and in view of the importance of the question, these two C.M. As have been referred to Division flench.

2. The facts in C.M.A. 79 of 1983 can be summarised as follows: The landlord is the appellant. He filed O.S. 440 of 1979 before the Munsiff Court, Alleppey for a declaration of the contract rate of rent, for arrears of rent and also for recovery of the building subject to S.11 of Act 2 of 1965. According to the appellant-plaintiff, the defendant took the building on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. Subsequently the plaintiff made certain additions to the building and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 100/-. The defendant contended that the suit was not maintainable and that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He also disputed the rate of rent. The defendant denied that the rent was enhanced to Rs. 100/- frorn 15-6-1977. The trial court held that relief prayed for by the plaintiff cannot be granted by a civil court. The matter was taken up in appeal and the lower appellate court held that the suit was opposed to S.5 (2) of Act 2 of 1965 since the landlord wanted to enhance the original rate of contract rent. However lower appellate court was of the view that the Munsiff should have passed a decree subject to S.11 of the Rent Control Act, and therefore the suit was remanded to the trial court for the purpose of considering the question whether the plaintiff was entitled to get a decree for realisation of arrears of rent and eviction subject to S. H of the Rent Control Act.

3. In CMA.199 of 1983 the 3rd defendant is the appellant. There the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction alleging that two rooms were entrusted to the first defendant on 19-J-1970 on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. While these two rooms were in the occupation of the first defendant, he requested for the possession of a lean to attached to these rooms. That also was given possession to the first defendant. According to the plaintiff that would fetch a monthly rent of Rs. 10/-. First defendant paid rent till 9-10-1978 and thereafter defaulted in paying the rent. The 2nd defendant was the caretaker of the first defendant. The plaintiff prayed for a declaration of his right over these two rooms and for eviction of the defendants and for arrears of rent. The first and second defendants contended that one of the rooms is in the occupation of the present appellant and therefore she was impleaded as additional 3rd defendant. The first defendant contended that he was not in possession of any shop room belonging to the plaintiff and that he is a Government employee. He denied the alleged leasehold arrangement. The second defendant also denied the leasehold arrangement between himself and plaintiff. According to him the plaint schedule rooms were taken by his mother from one Ambujakshan and she entrusted one room to second defendant and he had been conducting a grocery shop in the room and the other room is being occupied by the 3rd defendant and therein she has been conducting a trade in fertilizers. The third defendant-appellant contended that she had been in occupation of one room and a lean to and the same were given possession to her by one Ambujakshan. She subsequently learned that Ambujakshan had let out the rooms with the consent of the plaintiff. The trial court held that in view of S.11(1) of Act 2 of 1965 the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The trial court also held that the suit for arrears of rent could be filed only before the small cause court. The District Court. Quilon in A.S. 53 of 1982 reversed the finding of the Munsiff's Court. The lower appellate court held that the 3rd defendant was not claiming