ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the impugned order, the High Court in exercise of powers under the second proviso to Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short "the Act"), directed that there was bona fide denial in relation to title of the landlords and as such it directed that it will be open to the landlords to file a civil suit in terms of the said proviso before an appropriate civil court. In the present case, it appears that three persons were impleaded as plaintiffs, Denny, Sara and Joseph Pindis. Plaintiff 3 is brother of Plaintiff 2 Sara, and Plaintiff 1 Denny is son of Plaintiff 3. Since the property belonged to Sara, who was undisputedly a landlady and one of the plaintiffs, the High Court was not justified in passing the order purporting to act under the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act. This being the position, in our view, the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the High Court to consider the entire matter on merits afresh. 3. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to it to dispose of the revision application on merits in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. 4. No costs.