The civil court cannot grant eviction on the strength of the owner's title alone without proving the grounds for eviction mentioned in the Rent Control Act.

1. A learned judge of this Court before whom this Second Appeal came up for hearing, referred the Appeal to a Bench. The order of reference reads:

The question involved in this Second Appeal is as to whether it is necessary for a landlord to prove any of the grounds mentioned in S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in a suit for eviction filed on the bash of the second proviso to sub-S. (1) S.11 of the Act, even in cases where the denial of title by the tenant involves forfeiture of the lease within the meaning of clause (g) of S.111 of the Transfer of Property Act. The decision of this Court in Appukkuttan v. Vasu,1978 K. L. T. 776 does not deal with this aspect of the case. I therefore refer the second appeal for decision by a Division Bench."

2. The short facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details are: One K.P. Krishnan Nair and 8 others filed a petition for eviction under S.11 (2), (3) and (4) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965 against one Ibrayan and 8 others, the appellants in this second appeal, the persons in possession of the plaint schedule building as tenants In the written objections filed before the Rent Control Court the appellants-tenants denied the title of the first petitioner in the petition for eviction K.P. Krishnan Nair and contended that the building belonged to one Narayanan Nair. The Rent Control Court found that the denial of title as bonafide and directed the petitioners to file a suit for eviction before the civil court.

3. Accordingly the suit for eviction was filed before the Munsiff Court, Kuthuparamba. Though the plaintiffs filed the suit before the civil court in view of the second proviso to S.11 (1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 2 of 1965, the suit filed was one for eviction on the strength of title. The trial court gave the following findings: The lease of the building as alleged in the plaint is not true. The first plaintiff has title to the plaint schedule building. When the fact as to who is the landlord of the building is in dispute it cannot be said that there exists any landlord tenant relationship either between PW1 and DW1 or between plaintiffs 2 to 9 and Dw 1. If there is no landlord tenant relationship between the persons who claim ownership of the building and the person in occupation, the person who is the owner is entitled to seek eviction on the strength of his title and for that the grounds mentioned in the Rent Control Act need not be proved. Hence the defendants are liable to be evicted from the building. Accordingly the trial court granted a decree for eviction.

4. The appellants-tenants challenged the judgment and the decree of the trial court in appeal before the District Court, Tellichery. Pending the appeal Krishnan Nair, the first plaintiff in the suit passed away and his legal representatives were impleaded as supplemental respondents. The lower appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court holding that when the first plaintiff has title to the building he is entitled to recover possession and in that case the grounds for eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965 need not be proved.

5. It is the above judgment and decree of the lower appellate court that are challenged by the appellants-tenants in this Second Appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants can be evicted from the building only if one or more of the grounds enumerated in S.11 of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965 are alleged and proved in the case even if the civil court was to try and dispose of the case. According to the learned counsel a tenant of a building to which the provisions of Act 2 of 1965 apply can be evicted only if one of the grounds for eviction mentioned in S.11 of Act 2 of 1965 has been established in the case and as that has not been done, the judgment and decree for eviction will have to be set aside.

6. The second proviso to S.