Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

Heard the learned senior advocates appearing for the parties.

2. This revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short, the 'Rent Act', is against the judgment by which the Appellate Authority reversed an order of the Rent Control Court holding that the respondent in the rent control petition, who was sought to be evicted, had bona fide denied the title of the landlord.

3. For the sake of brevity, we refer to the persons arrayed as landlords as 'Lonappan', the deceased first among them. The respondents, arrayed as tenants, are hereinafter referred to as 'Varunni', their predecessor-in- interest.

4. Lonappan filed O.S.No.837 of 1997 against Varunni before the jurisdictional civil court for realisation of arrears of rent, subject to the law of limitation. Exts. B4 and B5 are, respectively, the copies of the plaint and written statement in that suit. In Ext.B5 written statement in that suit, Varunni challenged the title set up by Lonappan. Then, that suit was withdrawn. Thereafter, Lonappan instituted the rent control petition, from which the revision arises, in 1999, pleading that Varunni took the shop room in question on rent on 20-12-1969 and there was arrears of rent from 1973.

5. In opposition to the petition for eviction, Varunni's legal representatives denied the paramount title of Lonappan and also refuted the pleaded lease. They also pleaded that the property came into hands of Varunni as a lease from Edakunni Devaswom and that thereafter, as per Ext.B1, Varunni had settled his assets including this particular item; whereunder devolution took place on the strength of that settlement, and, following that, Varunni's legal representatives obtained certificate of purchase under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, 'KLR Act', for short.

6. Thus, the denial of title set up by the tenant was, jurisprudentially, two fold. Firstly, there was denial of the paramount title of the persons arrayed as landlords. Secondly, the title of those persons as landlords, qua the building lease, held out for the purpose of the application for eviction stood denied.

7. At trial, one of the sons of Lonappan deposed. PW2 was examined to prove Ext.A1, which is the so-called building lease document. Rebuttal evidence came through one of the sons of Varunni.

8. Rent Control Court, holding that there is bona fide denial of landlords' title and, therefore, the matter falls within Section 11(1) of the Rent Act, relegated the parties to litigate before the competent civil court.

9. Lonappan's legal representatives carried the matter in an appeal under Section 18 of the Rent Act. The Appellate Authority held that Ext.B1 and Ext.B2 relied on by Varunni's legal representatives do not show that they had dealt with the building in question; and that there could not have been issuance of patta in 1995 under the KLR Act. It held that there is no denial of title, inasmuch as the rival title set up by Varunni's legal representatives was not established. Therefore, the Appellate Authority proceeded to consider Ext.A1, the alleged lease document (rent deed). It relied on the testimony of PW2 and held that Ext.A1 is proved. Accordingly, it upheld the existence of tenancy. Having found that there is no evidence, with Varunni's legal representatives, to plead and prove discharge of the rent due, an order of eviction, solely on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b) of the Rent Act was issued by the Appellate Authority.

10. Learned senior counsel appearing for Varunni's legal representatives argued that a simple examination by naked eye, would by itself show that Ext.A1 is not reliable. It is pointed out that Ext.A1 does not have any attestor. That position notwithstanding, a person's name is mentioned therein as the scribe. He has not signed the document. Yet, PW2 is projected as the person who wrote Ext.A1. His cross examination brought out that the said person had been invol