B. Kemal Pasha, J.

Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the First Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram in O.S.No.1230/2007, followed by those of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S.No.133/2008, the plaintiff in the suit has come up with this second appeal.

2. The suit is one for recovery of possession based on title, for a decree of perpetual injunction and for realisation of arrears of rent. Relief (A) has been sought for as follows:

"A decree be passed declaring independent title and possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and also the plaintiff may be allowed to recover possession of the plaint schedule property and building by evicting the defendant."

3. The plaintiff and defendant are direct brothers. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property having an extent of 13 cents and a building thereon was purchased by the plaintiff through Ext.A1 sale deed from one Kunjan. The same is out of a larger extent of 1 acre and 67 cents of property devolved on Kunjan through Ext.B18 gift deed. Ext.A1 is dated 15.5.1996. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant, who is the brother, had no place of abode, whereby the defendant approached the plaintiff and sought for the building in the said property on lease. Accordingly, the plaintiff rented out the building to the defendant, allegedly on an oral arrangement on a monthly rent of? 100/-.

4. Admittedly, the area wherein the building is situated is a notified area coming under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Act'). Even though the main relief sought for is one for declaration of title and possession and also for recovery of possession of the building by vacating the defendant, precisely it seems that the main relief sought for is one for recovery of possession based on title. On the basis of the averments contained in the plaint, the suit is not maintainable before a civil court. When recovery of possession based on title is sought for, especially by alleging that there is a rental arrangement between the parties, the plaintiff ought to have preferred a rent control petition before the rent control court on any of the grounds mentioned under Section 11 of the Rent Control Act. Section 11(2) of the Rent Control Act clearly takes away the jurisdiction of the civil court in such matters. Under Section 11(1) of the Rent Control Act, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Control Act. Even if a decree is there prior to the inclusion of the area within the notified area on which, the provisions of the Rent Control Act are applicable, even then such a decree becomes not executable.

5. Matters being so, the suit itself is not maintainable before a civil court. Of course, on the filing of the Rent Control Petition by the plaintiff, the defendant may take up a contention that the plaintiff has no title. In such case, as per the provisions under the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Rent Control Act, where the tenant denies the title of landlord, the Rent Control Court shall decide whether the denial is bona fide, and if it records a finding to that effect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil court and such court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned under Section 11. Therefore, the provision is clear. In this particular case, the plaintiff ought to have approached the Rent Control Court and ought to have invoked the provisions contained under the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Rent Control Act, in case of denial of his title by the defendant.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision in M/s East India Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd.[AIR