IMPORTANT POINT
After attornment of tenancy tenant cannot deny title of landlord.

N.K. Balakrishnan, J.—The tenant is in revision. Order of eviction was concurrently passed under Section 11(3) of the Act. Though claim for eviction was made under S.11(2)(b), that was disallowed by the Rent Controller. It was not appealed against. The petition schedule building was originally held by a firm by name Green Garden Company. It was contended by the landlord that the respondent company took over the assets of the partnership firm and since then it became the landlord of the entire property including the petition schedule building. The need projected is that the company wanted to construct a nine storied building and that unless the petition schedule building is demolished the proposed building cannot be constructed making use of the remaining area.

2. The claim was resisted by the revision petitioner contending that the respondent is not the landlord of the petition schedule building and that the revision petitioner is not a tenant under the respondent. It was also contended that for the construction of the nine storied building as alleged by the respondent, the petition schedule building is not liable to be demolished. The Rent Controller found that the denial of title put forward by the revision petitioner is not bona fide. It was found that the need put forward by the respondent to construct a nine storied building as stated in the petition is true and that without demolishing the petition schedule building the said construction cannot be made.

Though the revision petitioner contended that he is entitled to the benefit of the second proviso, he could not succeed in his plea. Hence order of eviction was passed under Section 11 (3).

3. The learned Appellate Authority on a reappraisal of the evidence concurred with the order passed by the Rent Control Court.

4. Sri.T.Jayakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner made strenuous arguments on all the grounds raised in the Revision Petition. He would mainly attack the order passed by the Rent Controller on the ground that though plea of denial of title was raised by the revision petitioner in the counter statement, it was not considered by the Rent Controller as a preliminary point. The learned counsel would submit that the Second Proviso to Section 11 (1) mandates that where the tenant denies the title of the landlord, the Rent Control Court shall decide whether the denial or claim is bonaftde and if it records a finding to that effect, the landlord shall been titled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil court. It is further argued by the learned counsel that since the Rent Control Court did not raise the preliminary point to decide the question as to whether the denial of title is bonafide or not, the revision petitioner filed I.A. No.1796 of 2008 requesting the court to decide that question. The order passed on that application on 29.5.2008 is as follows:

“Heard. Petition is allowed. Heard the question whether the denial of title is bona fide or not. Hence the I. A. is closed.”

(It does not convey the intended meaning).

5. According to the learned counsel no order was passed by the Rent Control Court as to whether the denial of title is bonafide or not. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would submit that there is another order dated 2.6.2008. On verification of the records a draft order dated 2.6.2008 could be seen. A detailed order is seen typed and signed by the Additional Munsiff (it should have been signed as the Additional Rent Controller). The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that when IA No.1796 of 2008 was closed on 29.5.2008 as has been quoted earlier, it is inconceivable how a separate order could be passed on 2.6.2008 behind the back of the revision petitioner. The learned counsel has also pointed out when application for certified copy of the order was filed he was supplied with the order as quoted earlier. The learned counsel submits that had the revision petitione