A tenant can only be evicted through rent control proceedings unless the tenant denies the landlord's title or claims a right of permanent tenancy, as provided under Sec.10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the second proviso. In such cases, the civil court has jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction.

The only point raised in this appeal is as to the maintainability of the suit filed for declaration of plaintiff’s title and for possession has been decreed and the defendants have filed this appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff Sethumani Ammal is that she is the owner of the suit property. Plaintiff’s father Rajanga Nadar who was managing the property had let it out defendant on a rent of Rs.75 per mensem for one year. Even after the period of the the defendant continued in possession. He paid rent till November, 1978 and thereafter stopped payment. The plaintiff issued notice calling upon the defendant to surrender possession but he would not do so raising false contentions. The plaintiff along with father filed R.C.O.P.No.17 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Chidambaram. In that proceedings the defendant denied the tenancy and he claimed the property under an alleged agreement of sale. In view of this stand taken defendant she did not prosecute the eviction petition further and she withdrew the same that she could file a suit for recovery of possession. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 5.9.1983. Now the plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration of title and recovery possession. The defendant’s possession is that of a trespasser and he has no legal be in possession. He is also liable to pay mesne profits from December, 1978, plaintiff restricts that claim for a period of three years prior to the suit. At the rate of per mensem the plaintiff has claimed past mesne profits of Rs.3,600 and she has claimed future mesne profits.

3. The defendant contested the suit contending that he was never a tenant. It is contended that in or about 1970 the plaintiff’s father who was a close friend of the defendant permitted him to be in the suit property. Later in the year 1976 the defendant came to that the plaintiff is the owner of the property. They said that the property was for sale. defendant offered to purchase it. After negotiation the price was fixed at Rs.10,000 sum of Rs.5,000 was paid as advance on 21.8.1976 and the balance amount of Rs.5,000 was agreed to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed and completion transaction. The defendant was always ready and willing to perform his part of the but the plaintiff and her father had been evading the execution of the sale under pretext. Therefore the suit for his eviction is not maintainable.

4. The trial court rejected the case of the defendant that there was an agreement of also disbelieved the plaintiff ’ s case that the defendant is a tenant. But finding that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and the possession the defendant is illegal he decreed the suit for declaration and possession and also for mesne profits of Rs.1,800 and he relegated the future profits to an enquiry under O.20, Rule 12, C.P.C.

5. Now the only point that is argued in this appeal by Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant is that the suit is not maintainable because when it is the case the plaintiff that the defendant is a tenant her only remedy is to seek for his eviction under Sec.10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and not by way of a suit. This plea of course has not been taken in the trial courts but being a question of law relating to the jurisdiction of the court this point can be argued in the appeal.

6. It is the definite case of the plaintiff that the defendant is a tenant. Now, as per Sec.10(1) of the Act a tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this section or Secs.14 to 16. Therefore it is imperative that the plaintiff has to initiate proceedings for eviction against the defendant in a Rent Control Proceedings. To this Sec.10(1) an exception is provided under the second proviso according to which where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right permanent tenancy, the Controller shall decide w