The defendant is the appellant. The defendant is the tenant of a building leased out to him by the first plaintiff church. After terminating the tenancy the first plaintiff Church through its Kaikars filed the suit for eviction. The building is admittedly located in an area to which the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act stood extended. The plaintiff filed the suit without approaching the Rent Control Court established under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that the building belonging to the first plaintiff-Church were exempt from the purview of the Act in lieu of the notification issued under Section 25(1) of the Act as per G.O. (MS) No. 14/92/HSG. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the suit was not maintainable. It was contended that the first plaintiff was not properly represented in the suit. The Notification under Section 25 of the Act relied on by the plaintiffs did not apply to the plaint schedule building. The plaint schedule property did not belong to the first plaintiff Church. The plaintiff were not entitled to a decree for eviction as against the defendant. The defend