Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

The respondents in RCP.No.4/2002 on the files of Rent Control Court, Kottayam, who were respondents in RCA No. 8/2004 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam, are the revision petitioners. They are aggrieved by the finding entered by the rent control appellate authority in reversal of the finding of the rent control court that their denial of title of the landlord/respondents is not bonafide.

2. The rent control petition was instituted by the respondents invoking the grounds of arrears of rent (Section 11(2)(b)) and bonafide need for own occupation (Section 11(3)) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The rent control petition was sought to be maintained by the respondents on their averment that the petition schedule building was let out to the husband of the first revision petitioner, one Sri.Abdul Khadar in 1980 on a monthly rent of Rs.75/- and that upon the demise of the above said Abdul Khadar, revision petitioners being his wife and children are continuing in possession as tenants. The contention of the revision petitioners was one of total denial of the rental arrangement pleaded by the respondent/ landlord. According to them Sri. Abdul Khadar had come into possession of the petition schedule building way back in 1959, on the strength of an agreement for sale executed by one Padipurackal Chackochan @ Jacob on the terms of which Abdul Khadar was liable to pay total sale consideration of Rs. 1200/- against which Rs. 1000/- was readily paid. With reference to the document of title relied on by the respondent/landlord, the contention raised by the revision petitioners was that conveyances were executed in favour of the predecessor of the respondent/landlord experimentally and that the predecessor of the respondent never obtained possession on the basis of those conveyances. It was further contended that the revision petitioners have perfected title over the petition schedule building by adverse possession for more than 12 years in denial of the apparent title obtained by the predecessor of the landlord and that the title if any obtained by the predecessor of the landlord has been lost to him by prescription. It is accordingly contended that the revision petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule building as full owners.

3. Though on the terms of the objections filed by the revision petitioners there was warrant for formulating a preliminary question in terms of second proviso to Section 11(1), the learned rent control court did not formulate any such preliminary question. Instead, the rent control petition was enquired into and at trial documents Exts.A1 to A52 were produced and witnesses PWs 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the respondent landlord and documents Exts. B1 to B9 were produced and witness- CPW1 was examined on the side of the revision petitioners. The rent control court on conclusion of evidence formulated the following issues:

"1) Whether the denial of the title of the petitioner by counter petitioner has been made bonafide ?

2) Whether the petition for eviction is allowable under Section 11(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act ?

3) Reliefs and costs."

4. The rent control court held under issue No.1 that the case involves a bonafide denial of the title and hence dismissed the rent control petition relegating the parties to approach a competent civil court. The rent control appellate authority relying mainly on the judgment of this court in Charuletha v. Manju (2004 (1) KLT 290) noticed that the instant one, was a case where the tenant had not admitted his status in relation to the building to be that of a tenant and held that such persons who do not admit their status in the building to be that of tenants are not entitled to raise a plea of denial of title, the bonafides of which is liable to be enquired into by the rent control court or the appellate authority. Accordingly the finding of t