O R D E R

G. Girish, J.

The tenant in R.C.P.No.127 of 2020 of the Rent Control Court, Kannur is the revision petitioner. In the above petition instituted by the respondents-landlords for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), the tenant denied the title of the landlords, and filed I.A.No.3 of 2023 for hearing the issue of denial of title before proceeding further. The Rent Control Court, after hearing both sides, passed an order, dismissing the above I.A. on 07.10.2023 with the observation that there is no need to hear the denial of title as the preliminary issue, and that the question of maintainability can be considered at the time of full-fledged trial. In fact, in the above order, the Rent Control Court had articulated various aspects relating to the concept of title of the landlord in rent control proceedings and tacitly observed in favour of the title of the respondents-landlords. The petitioner-tenant took up the matter in appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-III), Thalassery. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery dismissed the above appeal numbered as R.C.A.No.154 of 2023 in limine on 08.12.2023, with the observation that the order of the Rent Control Court reflected that the issue of title agitated by the tenant had been determined after referring to the documents marked in the case and the decisions of the higher courts, notwithstanding the remark that there was no need to decide the issue of title as a preliminary issue. The disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority was without expressing any opinion as to whether the denial of title of the landlord, agitated by the tenants, was bona fide. Aggrieved by the above dismissal of R.C.A.No.154 of 2023 by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision filed under Section 20 of the Act.

2. Though notice of this revision was issued through speed post in the correct address of the respondents, it was not returned after service even after 30 days from the date of issuance. At last, as per order dated 06.03.2024 in I.A.No.3 of 2024 filed by the petitioner under Rule 51(2) of the Rules of High Court of Kerala, 1971, service of notice upon the respondents was declared as complete.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

4. The second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act reads 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.”

5. It is well-settled that in a rent control proceedings, if the tenant denies the title of the landlord, the challenge relating to such denial of title has to be adjudicated before proceeding further, and there should be a finding as to whether such denial of title of the landlord, or the claim for permanent tenancy by the tenant, is bona fide or not. The issue regarding denial of title of the landlord or the claim for permanent tenancy by the tenant cannot be relegated to the trial stage since it would result in inordinate delay in the disposal of the case. A tenant who wants to protract the rent control proceedings and delay eviction may raise a false contention that the landlord has no title. Likewise, the proceedings get abruptly protracted if a person falsely claims that he is the landlord and files a rent control petition against the person in possession of the building under the real title holder. In all such circumstances, a decision as to whether the denial of title of the landlor