Judgment :- 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 The petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 5.9.1983.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. 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. 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 whether the denial of title is bona fide, he records a finding to that effect the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction court and the Court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned said section notwithstanding that the court finds that such denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded. 7. In this case, in fact, the plaintiff has filed R.C.O.P.No.17 of 1981, but however, that the defendant has denied the tenancy and claimed right to the property by virtue alleged agreement of sale, sought to withdraw the petition and the petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. There was no finding of the Rent Controller as to whether there denial of title by the defendant and that denial is bona fide. Therefore at that stage landlord need not have withdrawn the petition and ought to have pursued it. This being case the present suit is not competent. 8. Mr.Parthasarathy, in support of his contention has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court East India Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., A.I.R. 1991 S.C. wherein at paragraph 8 it is laid down as follows: “What is stated in the second proviso to Sec.10(1) is the sole circumstance in which the court is invested with jurisdiction in matters of eviction. But this jurisdiction cannot invoked otherwise than as stipulated in the second proviso. This means that the condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by a civil court is that the tenant should have the title of the landlord or claimed right of permanent tenancy and the Controller should, such denial or claim by the tenant, reach a decision whether such denial or claim is fide. Upon such decision, the Controller must record a finding to that effect. Upon such decision, the Controller must record a finding to that effect. In that the landlord is entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil court. Where conditions are satisfied, the civil court will have jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction any of the grounds mentioned in Sec.10 or Secs.14 to 16 notwithstanding that the court found that the tenant’s denial of the landlord’s title does not involve forfeiture of the or, his claim of right of permanent tenancy is unfounded. Except to this limited extent, jurisdiction of the civil court in matters of eviction of a tenant is completely barred and jurisdiction in such matters is vested in the tribunals set up under the statute.” In paragraph 9, towards the end, it is again stated: “What is significant is that the decision of the controller, duly recorded by him, as the bona fide denial or claim by the tenant is the condition precedent to the invocation power of the civil court. Any suit instituted by the landlord for eviction of a tenant building falling within the ambit of the Act, otherwise than as stipulated by the section therefore, incompetent for lack of jurisdiction of the court and any decree of the court a suit is null and void and of no effect.” 9. Another thing that requires consideration is whether the defendant has really denied title of the plaintiff. This is not clear from the plaint averments. In the written statement in one place it is stated that the plaintiffs title is not denied, but in another place defendant seems to claim title by adverse possession. The counter filed in the Rent petition has not been marked in the suit. But even if the defendant has not disputed title of the plaintiff and he only disputed the tenancy, then it is all the more reason that the plaintiff will not have to file the present suit, and he ought to have proceeded with the rent control petition. 10. Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff raised a doubt as to how can again go to the Rent Control court inasmuch as the civil court has now held that defendant is not a tenant. But as seen above, according to the Supreme Court since the is incompetent the decree is null and void. Therefore there is no need for this doubt. But as seen above, according to the Supreme Court since the is incompetent the decree is null and void. Therefore there is no need for this doubt. In view of the matter the judgment and decree of the trial court cannot be sustained and the appeal is allowed and the suit is dismissed, but in the circumstances there will order as to costs. Appeal allowed.