The main legal point established is that under S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, a tenant cannot be evicted from a building without an order of the Rent Control Court, and the denial of the landlord's title by the tenant does not give the civil court jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction without the Rent Control Court's decision on the denial's bona fides.

1. Questions of some importance in rent control law arise for consideration in this civil revision filed by the tenant who resists eviction in execution of a civil court decree. The questions are: (1) Whether the tenant of a building to which the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 2 of 1965, for short the Act, applies can be evicted without approaching the Rent Control Court under S.11 of the Act. (2) When the tenant denies the title of the landlord what is the procedure to be followed; and (3) Whether the fact that the tenant did not raise a contention in the suit for eviction before the civil court that be can be evicted from the building only in pursuance of an order for eviction under S. H of the Act, can debar such a contention in execution.

2. The defendant judgment debtor in O.S. 675 of 1962 of the Munsiff's Court, Quilon, against whom E P. No. 492 of 1976 was filed before the same court is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The suit was for the declaration of the plaintiffs' right over the plaint schedule property as kuthakapattom tenant and for recovery of the same with arrears of rent. The plaint schedule properly is a building let out to the petitioner and the 10 cents of land on which it was built, in the Quilon Municipal Town. In the reply sent to the suit notice the petitioner denied the plaintiffs' title to the plaint schedule property. The trial court gave a decree declaring the plaintiff's kuthakapattom right over the plaint schedule property, and allowed recovery of possession of the same with arrears of rent on payment of value of improvements. The above decree of the trial court was confirmed in appeal by the District Court, Quilon. But in second appeal by the petitioner the said decree was reversed by this court. The respondents did not leave the matter there. They filed an appeal from second appeal from the above decision and a Bench of this Court which heard the said appeal reversed the judgment and decree of the learned single judge and restored that of the trial court. The Bench also held that at the time of filing the suit the kuthakapattom to the plaintiffs-respondents or their predecessor was subsisting

3. Thereafter the respondents filed E. P No. 492 of 1976 for delivery remitting the value of improvements to be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a counter mainly contending that since the decree schedule building is situated in the Quilon Municipality he can be evicted only under the Rent Control Act and hence no eviction can be had in execution of the decree obtained. To the above counter the respondents filed a counter on 10-12-1976. In that counter there is a clear statement that the building mentioned in the decree schedule was let out to the petitioner. The execution court repelled the the petitioner's contention saying that there is no necessity to file a petition for eviction under S.11 of Act 2 of 1965 and ordered delivery.

4. The petitioner challenged the above order of the execution court before the District Court, Quilon, in A.S. No. 10 of 1977. But the District Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal saying:

"Coming first to the contention that the matter is governed by the provisions of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, it has to be observed that the decree shows that the claim of the decree-holder was based on title as the defendant had denied his title. It was a decree for possession on the basis of title that was passed in Plaintiffs' favour and not a decree for eviction. Defendant has been ordered to be paid compensation for certain improvements effected by him in the property. Apart from that, what was leased out to the judgment debtor by decree-holder's predecessor in title was a plot of land with a dilapidated building, which building the defendant dismantled and a new building was put up. It is in respect of that building that compensation has been ordered to be paid. Obviously therefore provisions of Buildings (Lease and Ren