BHARATHI Vs. VINOD S SIVASUDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Opining that the dicta laid down in Parthakumar v. Ajith Viswanathan, 2006 2 KerLT 250 and in Narayan Murti v. Thankamma Sebastian, 2005 3 KerLT 102 are manifestly at variance regarding interpretation of second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Act 2 of 1965) for short 'the Act' a Division Bench of this Court referred this matter to the Full Bench. Section 11(1) and second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act reads as follows:

(2.) The Full Bench in Parthakumar's case (supra) held that existence of landlord-tenant relationship is inevitable for the special tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction. Once the Rent Control Court is satisfied that the contention regarding denial of title or claim for permanent tenancy is bona fide, the claims regarding title has to be decided finally by the Civil Court. That is a zone or area where civil Court must entertain jurisdiction. The Full Bench also held that proprietary title of the person claiming eviction is irrelevant to decide the jurisdiction. The Full Bench held as follows:

(3.) In Narayan Murti's case denial of title was put forward only at the fag end of trial. It was held as follows: