The Rent Control Court has exclusive jurisdiction over eviction matters governed by the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and it is not empowered to adjudicate on the value of improvements. Claims for compensation for improvements should be adjudicated in the civil court.

1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. Against him the landlord filed R. C. P. 109/68 for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, sub-letting and bonafide requirement for own occupation. The tenant (revision petitioner) denying these grounds filed M.P. 2686/69 claiming fixity of tenure and also that unless the value of improvements effected by him in the building amounting in all to Rs. 40,000/-is paid the landlord is not entitled to evict him and praying that this question may primarily be decided. In other words, his case is that the matter is governed by proviso (2) to S.11 (1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (shortly stated the Act) and the proper forum for deciding the question whether he could be evicted is the civil court and so according to the tenant the landlord should be directed by the Rent Control Court to move the civil court for appropriate orders. This petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller; but allowed in appeal by the learned appellate authority, which decision has been reversed by the District Judge in revision.

2. I think the decision of the learned District Judge is correct and does not call for interference in this further revision. Proviso (2) reads:

"Provided further that where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the Rent Control Court shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide and if it records a finding to that effect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil court and such court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in this section, notwithstanding that the court finds that such denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded."

The two grounds, therefore, recognised by the Act for ousting the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court

are:

(1) denial of title of the land; and

(2) claim of right of permanent tenancy.

I do not think either of these requirements is present in the instant case. Ex-Dl is the rent deed executed by the revision petitioner in favour of Balagopala Menon and Gopinathan who are successors-in-interests of Ammukutty Amma who was the original owner. The document contains a conditional undertaking to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 175/- per mensem and also the municipal tax. On arrears, he has taken upon himself the liability to pay interest also. The building is to be enjoyed by him without committing any waste. In the face of these clear undertakings, I see no scope for the contention that he is entitled to fixity of tenure by virtue of the fact that he has effected improvements in the building. No fixity of tenure has become vested in him by virtue of any other circumstance. Decisions are uniform that the Rent Control Court is not expected to. go into the question of value of improvements. It is not a matter falling with, the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court. The Act is a complete code on the rights and liabilities of the landlord and tenant in respect of matters falling within the purview of landlord and tenant in respect of the building and it is not permissible for a landlord or tenant in cases governed by the Act to fall upon the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or the contract of tenancy or other extraneous circumstances. The Travancore-Cochin High Court had occasion to deal with this matter at some length and has held in Gomathi Amma v. Chinnakannu Pillai (1954 KLT. 278) that:

"There is nothing in the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order to indicate or suggest that cases where the tenant has a claim against the landlord for value of improvements effected by him in the building or for amounts charged on the building are excluded from the scope of the Order. There is no provision in that Order empowering the Controller to adjudicate upon such claims. Naturally therefore, it lies within the province of civil court to consider such claims and to adjudicate upon the same by passing