Point of Law : Civil court will get jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputed title or the claim of permanent tenancy and can pass a decree by virtue of second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, irrespective of the non-obstante clause incorporated under that sub-Section.

JUDGMENT :

The first defendant came up in appeal against the decree of declaration of title and recovery of possession in O.S.No.651/2010 of Sub Court, Kozhikode. The dispute is pertaining to a portion of property obtained by Sivanathan under Ext.A1 assignment deed dated 03/06/1954. At that time, he was a minor. His father P.M.Kutty died on 13.10.1987 and mother Devayani on 21.07.1986. During the life time of father, they were doing a partnership business in the name and style of 'P.M KUTTY AND SONS' based on Ext.A9 partnership deed dated 01.04.1971 including the business by name 'VICTORY AUTOMOBILES AND SERVICE STATION' in Kozhikode town. The plaint 'A' schedule having an extent of 71 cents was purchased in the name of Sivanathan represented through his mother Devayani under Ext.A1 assignment deed dated 03.06.1954. Various other items were also purchased in the name of his siblings, who were minors at that time. On the death of father, the partnership was dissolved under Ext.A11 on 31.03.1988. On the very same day, they made an internal arrangement, Ext.A12, by which the various business conducted by the partnership firm were separated. The business by name 'P.M.Kutty Stationery Merchant' in building No.13/813 of Kozhikode Corporation was exclusively given to Sivanathan. The ownership of business run in the plaint 'B' and 'C' schedule properties, which are part of 71 cents obtained by Sivanathan was exclusively allotted to the first defendant. While so, the plaint 'B' schedule property having an extent of 6.75 cents was purchased by the second defendant Venugopalan from the abovesaid Sivanathan under Ext.A18 registered assignment deed dated 20.01.1995. According to the second defendant, after the assignment the rent portion was divided proportionately at Rs.2,000/-per month and a demand notice was also issued to the first defendant on 01.04.1995 calling upon him to pay the monthly rent at the said rate. Since it was not paid, a rent control proceeding in RCP No.67/1995 was initiated by the second defendant against the first defendant before the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode for an order of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Subsequently, the 'C' schedule property having an extent of 13.75 cents was assigned by Sivanathan to the plaintiffs under Ext.A22 registered assignment deed, dated 26.03.1996 and claimed rent against the first defendant at the rate of Rs.6,000/- by issuing a lawyer notice which has also resulted in the initiation of yet another rent control proceedings-RCP No.166/1996 before the very same Rent Control Court on the ground of arrears of rent. While so, the abovesaid Venugopalan, second defendant, assigned his right over the 'B' schedule property to the plaintiffs under Ext.A29 assignment deed, dated 04.03.1997, based on which, it is contended that the plaintiffs became the absolute owners in de jure possession of plaint 'B' and 'C' schedule properties.

2. In the rent control proceedings, the respondent, who is the first defendant in the suit, denied landlord/tenant relationship as well as the title of plaintiffs over the property. The Rent Control Court, after hearing both the parties, found the denial of title bonafide and recorded a finding to that effect and dismissed the rent control proceedings. Two appeals -RCA No.25/1998 and 26/1998 were preferred against the said order, wherein a remand was ordered for consideration of additional documents, against which two revisions - C.R.P.Nos.651/2001 and 673/2001 were filed by the first defendant. The issue ultimately came before a Full Bench of this court in Parthakumar vs. Ajith Viswanathan [2006 (2) KLT 250] regarding the jurisdiction available under Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It is after the conclusion of the revisions, the plaintiffs, the purchaser of the property, filed a suit - O.S.No.651/2010 for declaration of title and for r