K.T. Sankaran, J.

1. A Division Bench of this Court referred the following questions for consideration by a Full Bench. (The reference order is reported in Smitha v. Krishnan 2011 (4) KLT 697.)

"(i) In a claim for eviction under Sections 11(3), 11 (4), 11(7) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (the Act hereafter), is the landlord bound, after establishing such grounds for eviction, to show further that his claim for eviction is bona fide? Is not the Court under Section 11(10) at all bound to consider the bona fides of such claim? Is there serious dichotomy between Aboobacker v. Sahithya P.S. Sangham Ltd., 2004(2) KLT 947) and the decisions of coequal Benches?

(ii) Can a litigant claim a further and different relief which is specifically denied to him by subordinate authorities in an appeal or revision under the Act filed by his adversary challenging a part of the order adverse to him when such litigant is, himself not choosing to challenge the rejection of his claim for such specific relief by preferring any appeal/revision or cross objections. Do precedents in Santha v. First Additional District Judge (1994(1) KLT 516) and Ganesh v. Varghese 2005 (1) KLT 282) require re-consideration?"

2. The facts of the case relevant for consideration of the questions referred to the Full Bench are stated below. The respondent/landlord filed the Rent Control Petition under Sections 11 (2)(b), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Rent Control Court allowed the Rent Control Petition under Section 11(2)(b) alone. The claim for eviction under Section 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) was rejected by the Rent Control Court. Challenging the order under Section 11(2)(b), the tenants filed R.C.A.No.29 of 2008 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the tenants and dismissed the Rent Control Petition under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. However, the Appellate Authority found that the monthly rent payable was L 3,000/-. The tenants filed R.C.R.No.429 of 2010 before this Court challenging the finding of the Appellate Authority regarding quantum of rent. No revision was filed by the landlord challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority. R.C.R.No.429 of 2010 filed by the tenants was dismissed. Against the order of the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(i), the landlord filed R.C.A.No.28 of 2008 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and allowed the Rent Control Petition under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act. The tenants filed R.C.R.No.358 of 2010 before this Court challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.28 of 2008. In the Revision filed by the tenants, the landlord challenged the judgment of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.29 of 2008 dismissing the Rent Control Petition under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. No cross objection was filed by the landlord. The dismissal of the Rent Control Petition under Section 11(4)(ii) became final, since no appeal was filed by the landlord.

3. When R.C.R.No.358 of 2010 came up for hearing before the Division Bench, after hearing the arguments of the counsel, the questions mentioned in paragraph 1 of this order were referred to the Full Bench for consideration.

4. When the matter came up before the Full Bench, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners filed a memo stating that during the pendency of the Rent Control Revision, the parties arrived at an out of Court settlement, in terms of which, the tenants vacated the tenanted premises. Since certain questions of law were referred by the Division Bench for the decision of the Full Bench, we heard the counsel in detail for answering the questions referred to the Full Bench.

5. Question No. 1: The Division Bench took the view that there is a conflict between the decision in Aboobacker v. Sahithya P.S. Sangham Ltd. (