The denial of title or claim of permanent tenancy by the tenants does not automatically remove the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court, and the essential requirement is that such denial or claim must be bona fide.

P.A. Mohammed, J.

1. This is a revision by the tenants of a 'building' under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). The original tenant Bharathan died and his legal heirs are the revision petitioners. The respondents are the landlords who are the legal heirs of the original landlord deceased Karunakara Panicker. The respondents filed the petition for eviction, R. C. P. No. 31/85, before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam under S.11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. After the enquiry the Rent Controller ordered eviction of the petitioners from the building in question under the aforesaid Sections, that is to say, on the grounds of 'arrears of rent' and 'bona fide need', In the appeal, R. C. A. No. 165 of 1989, filed by the petitioner under S.18 of the Act the Rent. Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam set aside the order of eviction under S.11(2) but confirmed eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. It is against the said judgment of the appellate authority, this revision is filed by the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel, Sri N. Viswanatha Iyer, on behalf of the petitioners, in the first place, argued that the authorities below ought to have referred the matter to a civil court as there is dispute regarding the ownership of the building. The contention is that the second proviso to sub-s.(1) of S.11 of the Act is attracted inasmuch as the tenants denied the title of the landlords in this case. It is pertinent to note in this connection that the petitioners did not deny the title of the respondents in respect of the tenanted building ; their denial is only limited to the 'shed' which came into being after the execution of Ext.A5 rent deed executed by the original tenant in favour of the original landlord. It is to be noticed that the case of the respondents - landlords is that for all intentions and purposes the shed was treated as part of the leasehold premises though it came into being after the commencement of the tenancy. In fact on this aspect the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority after independent assessment of evidence, came to same conclusion that the shed was treated by the parties as part of the leasehold premises.

3. It is admitted in this case that the plan (Ext.B1) and licence (Ext.B2) obtained from the Corporation of Cochin for the construction of the shed stand in the name of the original landlord Karunakara Panicker. It has come out in evidence that Bharathan had obtained the sanction for the construction of the shed form Karunakara Panicker. The shed is registered in the name of Karunakara Panicker as evident from Ext. A11 property tax assessment list, of the Corporation, In this situation it is difficult for the tenants to argue that there is dispute with regard to the title of the shed attached to the building. If there was any such claim, the tenants would have raised this plea at least when Ext P8 lawyer, notice was issued to them by the respondents demanding to vacate the premises as there was continued default in payment of rent. The tenanted building and the shed are referred to in Ext. A 8 as the subject matter of the lease, From the above evidence coupled with the conduct of the petitioners it is crystal clear that the denial of title by the petitioners in respect of the shed was not bona fide under any circumstance.

4. The second proviso to sub-s.(1) of S.11 is as follows:

"Provided further that where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the Rent Control Court shall decide whether the denial or claim 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 in this section, notwithstanding that the Court finds that such denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded."

The denial of title of the landlords or claim of perm