The second proviso to S.11(1) of the Rent Control Act re-invests the civil court with jurisdiction to proceed with the question of eviction when the denial of title by a tenant is found to be bona fide, but the civil court's powers are strictly confined to the grounds mentioned in S.11 for the purpose of allowing eviction.

1. The appellant is the first defendant in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession with arrears of rent. The suit was decreed and the decree was confirmed in appeal.

2. The appellant (the "defendant") was the respondent in an by the present respondent (the "plaintiff under S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the "Rent Control Act"). The application was resisted by the defendant on the ground that he disputed the title of the plaintiff. The Rent Control Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to establish his title by means of a suit as mentioned in the second proviso to S.11(1). A suit was accordingly filed by the plaintiff claiming recovery of possession on the basis of title in respect of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule together with arrears of rent. In decreeing the suit the learned Munsiff directed the plaintiff to approach the Rent Control Court for relief under S.11 of the Rent Control Act. Against that decree an appeal was filed by the defendant and a cross-appeal by the plaintiff It was contended by the plaintiff that the direction to approach the Rent Control Court for relief under S.11 was unsustainable as the civil court bad jurisdiction to grant the relief in terms of that section. The lower appellate court dismissed the defendant's appeal and allowed the plaintiff's cross-appeal.

3. Item 1 of the plaint schedule property is 22 cents of land with a building thereon. It is in respect of that building that the plaintiff seeks eviction of the defendant on the ground of arrears of rent under S.11(2) of the Rent Control Act. There is no building in item 2 of the plaint schedule property.

4. Both the courts having concurrently found, on the basis of correctly appreciated evidence, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the land on the strength of title, I see no ground to interfere with that finding in this second appeal. As far as the building is concerned, the finding that the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant in terms of S. II (2) is also unassailable as both the courts have held that the plaintiff is the landlord of the defendant in respect of the building and that the rents have fallen into arrears. Accordingly I confirm the finding under S.11(2) of the Rent Control Act.

5. I shall now deal with an interesting question raised by plaintiff's counsel Sri Subramani. He says that this Court having confirmed the finding of the courts below that the rent has fallan into arrears and that the defendant is liable to be evicted for the reason mentioned under S.11(2), the defendant cannot evade eviction by recourse to the protection mentioned under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of S.11. That protection, according to counsel, is available only when eviction is ordered in proceedings under the Rent Control Act and not when a civil court as in the present case deals with the question in accordance with the second proviso to S 11 (1).

6. I shall read clause (c) of S.11 (2) of the Rent Control Act.

"The order of the Rent Control Court directing a tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building shall not be executed before the expiry of one month from the date of such order or such further period as the Rent Control Court may in its direction allow; and if the tenant deposits the arrears of the rent with interest and cost of proceedings within the said period of one month or such further period, as the case may be, it shall vacate that order."

The protection of this clause is available wherever eviction is ordered on the ground mentioned under sub-section (2), viz., arrears of rent.

7. A Civil Court has no jurisdiction to order eviction unless it is moved in terms of the second proviso to S.11 (1) or as provided under S.18 (5) read with S.20. The second proviso to S.11 (1) of the Rent Control Act is as follows:

"Provided further that where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the Rent Control Cou