The following substantial question of law is framed for a decision in this second appeal drawn from the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Tirur in A.S. No. 28 of 2009:

"When the area where a building is situate was originally part of a panchayat which was notified under Sec.1(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and rent control) Act, (for short, 'the Act'), whether by the subsequent deletion of that area from that panchayat and its inclusion in another panchayat which is not so notified, the Act would not be applicable to that area and the civil court would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for eviction of a tenant of that building?

2. The respondent/landlord filed RCP No. 17 of 2005 in the Rent Control Court, Ponnani on 19.06.2005 under Secs: 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(v) of the Act for eviction of the appellant from the shop room situated in Keezhumuri Desom. That area then formed part of the Tavanur Panchayat. On the strength of a notification issued by the Government based on a request from the Tavanur Panchayat, the Act had been made applicable to the areas within that Panchayat. On 31-07-2006 the Rent Control Court passed an order allowing eviction only under Section 11(2) (b) of the Act which was liable to be vacated on the appellant/tenant depositing the rent arrears as provided under the law. On 23.07.2005 there was a notification issued by the Government under Sec.4 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short the "the Panchayat Raj Act") forming a new Panchayat by name, Kalady Panchayat with effect from 01-10-2005. The new Panchayat was formed carving out portions from the adjoining Panchayats including Keezhumuri desom from the Tavanur Panchayat.

3. Aggrieved as the Rent Control Court had not ordered eviction on other grounds urged, the respondent filed appeal to the Appellate Authority on 08.09.2006. Noticing that by that time Keezhumuri Desom where the shop room is situated was brought within the local limits of the newly formed Kalady Panchayat which was not notified under Section 1(3) of the Act, the respondent withdrew the proceeding and accordingly the rent control appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.09.2008. In the meantime, the respondent terminated tenancy of the appellant by a notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short, "the T.P. Act") and filed O.S. No. 157 of 2008 in the Munsiff -Magistrate's Court, Ponnani on 04.08.2008 seeking eviction. That suit was decreed in favour of the respondent and confirmed by the Sub Court, Tirur in A.S. No. 28 of 2009. It is against that judgment and decree that this second appeal is preferred raising the above substantial question of law.

4. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has contended that notwithstanding the formation of the Kalady Panchayat incorporating Keezhumuri desom where the shop room is situate, the notification issued by the Government under Section 1(3) of the Act on the request of the Tavanur Panchayat would remain in force with respect to Keezhumuri desom until that area is de-notified. According to the learned Senior Advocate, the notification issued by the Government under Sec.1(3) of the Act is not with respect to any panchayat or municipality but with respect to the areas mentioned in the notification. Therefore, notwithstanding that Keezhumuri desom is deleted from the Tavanur Panchayat and included in the newly formed Kalady Panchayat, the notification already issued with respect to the areas coming within Tavanur Panchayat making the provisions of the Act applicable to that area would continue to apply to Keezhumuri desom until de-notified as per a resolution adopted by the Kalady Panchayat. The learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the decision in Krishna Iyer Vs. Ramakrishna Iyer (1964 KLT 411). It is argued that the decision of this court in Biyathu V. Abdurahimankutty (1995 (1) KLT 529) distinguishing Krishna Iyer Vs. Ramakrishna Iyer is not good law in so far as the latt