1. The first defendant in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is the appellant herein. The 2nd defendant, who is the mother of the appellant, is travelling with the appellant. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit, who is none other than the paternal aunt of the appellant. The subject matter of the suit is just one cent of property with a building situated therein.

2. According to the plaintiff, she derived title over the property through a gift deed of 1964 executed in her favour by her late father. Thereafter, the plaintiff along with her husband and son had to go to Malaysia and they continued there. It is the case of the plaintiff that she used to send money to the father of the first defendant for putting up a building in the plaint schedule property, and a building has been constructed in the said property. According to the plaintiff, the father of the first defendant obtained the building on lease from the plaintiff and continued as a lessee. When she returned to India, she wanted to start a business of her own in the plaint schedule property and therefore, she filed R.C.P. No.10/2001 before the Rent Control Court against the appellant, his father and M/s Malayala Manorama on the grounds under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act(for short, ‘the Act’).

3. The appellant and his father contended that they are not tenants in respect of the building and that the building was put up by them in the property. They have claimed prescriptive right over the property through adverse possession and limitation. Further, a claim was also raised to the effect that the plaintiff had agreed to execute a sale deed in respect of the property in favour of the appellant and his father as and when the plaintiff comes back from Malasia. Even though such an oral arrangement was there, the plaintiff has not cared to perform her part of the oral arrangement. The Rent Control Court considered the said matter as if it is a case wherein there is bonafide denial of title. By considering that it was a bonafide denial of title, the Rent Control Court dismissed the rent control petition under Section 11(1) of the Act.

4. Thereafter, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff for getting her title over the property declared and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and the building from the defendants. Even in the written statement filed in the suit, the defendants have specifically claimed that they are not tenants in respect of the building; whereas, the building belongs to them. They have further contended that they have rented out a portion of the building to Malayala Manorama by styling themselves as the owner of that part of the building also. The trial court decreed the suit in terms of the plaint. On the dismissal of the RCP, Malayala Manorama vacated the building and thereafter defendants 1 and 2 have inducted the 3rd defendant Leji in the said portion of the building as a tenant under them. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court in O.S.No.153/2008, defendants 1 and 2 preferred A.S.No.15/2014 before the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Thiruvalla. The lower appellate court also concurred with the findings entered by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate court, the 2nd defendant, who is the mother of the first appellant died. There are no other legal heirs to be impleaded, since the appellant is the sole legal heir of his parents.

5. This Court has admitted this Second Appeal on the following substantial question of law:

“Has the first appellate court committed illegality in directing eviction of the appellants in the absence of the finding that one of the grounds mentioned in Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act has been proved.”

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The 2nd responde