Surendra Mohan, J.

The landlord is in revision before us challenging the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority. The short facts of the case are the following.

2. The revision petitioner/landlord filed RCP 17/2005 before the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). The petition was resisted by the tenant disputing the title of the landlord. The tenant also contended in the alternative that the title, if any of the landlord, had been lost by adverse possession and limitation. In view of the fact that the title of the landlord itself was denied by the tenant, the Rent Control Court proceeded to consider whether the denial of title was bonafide. The Rent Control Court found that the denial of title was bonafide and therefore relegated the landlord to the remedy of filing a civil suit. The order of Rent Control Court was challenged by the landlord before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram in RCA 10/2007. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, both the authorities below have found that the remedy of the landlord is by way of a civil suit, without entering any findings on the merits of his claim for eviction. The said findings are under challenge in this revision.

3. According to the counsel for the revision petitioner, the petition schedule building is situate in a Panchayat area to which the provisions of the Rent Control Act had not been made applicable. Therefore, for the purpose of getting vacant possession of the tenanted building, the revision petitioner had earlier filed O.S.719/98 before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The suit was filed seeking a decree for eviction of the respondent-tenant, for the recovery of arrears of rent and for a permanent prohibitory injunction. According to the revision petitioner, an extent of 3.200 cents of land with the residential building bearing No: T.P.I/63 belonged to him absolutely, having obtained the same as per gift deed No: 2922 dated 28/12/1995. On the date of the gift deed itself, the tenant was informed of the change of ownership and she agreed to the landlord to pay rent at the rate of Rs.300/-per month. Though she paid rent up to June 1996, she defaulted the same thereafter. In spite of repeated demands, she omitted to pay the rent. In the above circumstances, there were some mediation talks consequent to which, the tenant agreed to pay the entire arrears of rent and to vacate the building by 31/12/1997. However, she did not abide by the terms of the said undertaking. Therefore, on 2/1/1998 a registered notice was issued to her terminating the tenancy and demanding vacant possession of the building together with the arrears of rent payable. However, the tenant refused to receive the notice. According to the landlord he needed the tenanted building for his own residence. The marriage of the landlord was to take place on 10/5/1998 and therefore, he wanted vacant possession of the building urgently. It was in the above circumstances that the suit was filed. The suit was contested by the respondent-tenant who was the sole defendant therein.

4. According to the respondent-tenant the suit was not maintainable for the reason that the landlord-plaintiff had suppressed material facts. The averment that the respondent was a tenant was stoutly denied. According to the respondent, she had no tenancy arrangement either with the plaintiff or with his predecessor-in-interest. She disputed the genuineness of the document of title of the plaintiff, a gift deed executed by one Parameswaran Pillai who was the owner of the property. According to her the document was created with the malafide intention of depriving her of the property. The respondent contend