JUDGMENT : This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff, challenging the concurrent dismissal of his suit for a declaration that, Ext.A9 order passed by the defendant-Kerala State Housing Board, is illegal. The issue involved relates to, rent payable for the tenanted premises. 2. The plaintiff was the lessee of the first defendant-Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as, “the Board”), in respect of a room in the shopping complex belonging to the Board. Ext.A1 is the lease agreement dated 02.05.1983 executed in the said regard. The period of lease was for one year from 02.05.1983. Ext.A1 lease deed contained a clause enabling renewal of the lease on an enhanced rent of 10%. According to the plaintiff, on the expiry of the original term of one year, he continued as a lessee by payment of the original rent, without renewal of the lease. Ext.A3 preliminary order was issued by the Board to the plaintiff under Section 85(1) of the Kerala State Housing Board Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”), requiring to vacate the leased premises consequent on arrears of rent. According to the plaintiff, though the provisional order was objected to and was pending consideration, he was evicted from the premises on 06.11.1991. Subsequently, the Board issued Ext.A4 notice dated 20.03.1992, in terms of Section 86(1) of the Act, requiring the plaintiff to pay the arrears of rent in terms of Ext.A1 agreement. The same was objected to by him as per Ext.A5 reply contending that, after expiry of the original term fixed under Ext.A1 agreement he was continuing on the same terms and conditions of Ext.A1, that he had been paying the rent, and that the due is only Rs.16,238.40. He also sought for a detailed statement of accounts. Thereafter the Board issued Ext.A6 order dated 10.10.1992, under Section 86(1) of the Act, requiring the District Collector to recover the arrears of rent through revenue recovery proceedings. The same was challenged by the plaintiff before this Court in OP 14404/1992. As ordered by the Court, an amount of Rs. 16,000/-, being the admitted arrears of rent, was paid by the plaintiff. This Court, as per Ext.A18 judgment, granted an opportunity to the parties to have the accounts settled. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff submitted Ext.A8 objections regarding the calculation of rent made by the Board. As ordered by the Court, an amount of Rs. 16,000/-, being the admitted arrears of rent, was paid by the plaintiff. This Court, as per Ext.A18 judgment, granted an opportunity to the parties to have the accounts settled. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff submitted Ext.A8 objections regarding the calculation of rent made by the Board. On consideration of the same, the Board passed Ext.A9 order dated 07.11.1998, requiring payment of the amount as mentioned therein as arrears of rent, and justifying its earlier proceedings. Challenging the same, the plaintiff approached this Court in OP 1737/1991. In the Writ Appeal that arose therefrom, as WA 1050/1999, the Division Bench as per Ext.A10 judgment, noticed that disputed facts are involved, and relegated the plaintiff to the remedy by way of a civil suit for appropriate relief. It is pursuant thereto that the suit has been filed challenging Ext.A9 order. 3. The Board relied on the clause in Ext.A1 agreement for renewal of the lease at an enhanced rent, and justified its demand for the enhanced rent. The jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit was also challenged. 4. The trial court held that, on expiry of the original period fixed under Ext.A1, the plaintiff was liable to pay enhanced rent in terms of the renewal clause and that the same is liable to be recovered as damages. It was also held that, there is an express bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 89 of the Act. On appeal by the plaintiff, the first appellate court found that the plaintiff has a right of appeal in terms of Section 87 of the Act, and that, on exhausting the said remedy it shall be open for the plaintiff to file a suit in the light of the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.A10 judgment in WA 1050/1999. It is aggrieved thereby that the Regular Second Appeal is filed. 5. It is aggrieved thereby that the Regular Second Appeal is filed. 5. Heard learned counsel Sri.M.Narendra Kumar on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff, Sri.Harish Vasudevan the learned Counsel on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 defendants 1 and 2, and Smt.Rekha C. Nair, the learned senior Government Pleader for the third respondent-third defendant on the following substantial question of law :- “Does the bar of jurisdiction under Section 89 of the Kerala State Housing Board Act, 1971, apply to a suit filed challenging an order for recovery of rent under Section 86(1) of the Act ?” 6. The term of lease under Ext.A1 lease agreement was for one year from 02.05.1983 to 01.05.1984. Ext.A1 agreement contains a renewal clause, providing for renewal of the lease at the option of the lessor at a higher rate of rent. Clause 13 of Ext.A1 agreement is the provision and it reads thus:- “The period of the lease may be renewed to the option of the lessor, after the expiry of the term of the lease hereby granted, with an enhancement of 10% on such conditions as may then be agreed upon between the lessor and the lessee.” 7. According to the Board, though communications were issued to the plaintiff to have the lease arrangement renewed in terms of the renewal clause, the plaintiff failed to do so. The plaintiff having continued in possession after the expiry of the original term of one year, he is bound to pay the enhanced rate of rent as mentioned in clause 13 of Ext.A1, is the contention. 8. In the notices issued by the Board to the plaintiff demanding payment of arrears of rent, the enhanced rate of rent is claimed. It is not in dispute that a deed of renewal of lease was not executed. A deed of renewal of lease having not been executed, it cannot be said that there has been a renewal of the lease under the renewal clause in Ext.A1. In State of U.P and others v. Lalji Tandon (dead) through Lrs, (2004) 1 SCC 1 , the Apex Court held thus, “There is a difference between an extension of lease in accordance with the covenant in that regard contained in the principal lease and renewal of lease, again in accordance with the covenant for renewal contained in the original lease. In the case of extension it is not necessary to have a fresh deed of lease executed, as the extension of lease for the term agreed upon shall be a necessary consequence of the clause for extension. However option for renewal consistently with the covenant for renewal has to be exercised consistently with the terms thereof and, if exercised, a fresh deed of lease shall have to be executed between the parties. Failing the execution of a fresh deed of lease, another lease for a fixed term shall not come into existence though the principal lease in spite of the expiry of the term thereof may continue by holding over for year by year or month by month, as the case may be.” Therefore, unless a renewal deed is executed, it could not be contended that there has been a renewal of lease and that the plaintiff is bound to pay rent in terms of the renewal clause. 9. That apart, the renewal clause in Ext.A1, which was extracted first above, provides for renewal of lease on an enhanced rent, on such terms as may be agreed to between the lessor and the lessee. The relevant portion reads thus:- “.....on such condition as may then be agreed upon between the lessor and the lessee.” It is only an agreement to agree upon something in the future and is not enforceable.[Aboobacker Keyi v. Govindan Sons ( 1990 (2) KLT 551 ), Sethulakshmi Bashi v. Punjab National Bank ( 2016 (4) KLT 857 ]. To sum up, the parties having not entered into a renewed agreement, there could not be a claim for enhanced rent under the said renewal clause. 10. Though the Board claims that in spite of repeated requests for execution of renewal deed, the plaintiff failed to do so, and certain communications in the said regard are produced by the Board, the receipt of the same, as also the claim, disputed by the plaintiff. There is no material to show the issuance, or service of such notice on the plaintiff. 11. Ext.A4 is the notice dated 20.03.1993 issued by the Board to the plaintiff. In Ext.A4, arrears of rent is claimed tracing to Ext.A1 agreement. There is no material to show the issuance, or service of such notice on the plaintiff. 11. Ext.A4 is the notice dated 20.03.1993 issued by the Board to the plaintiff. In Ext.A4, arrears of rent is claimed tracing to Ext.A1 agreement. In Ext.A4, it is stated thus, “You are hereby directed under sub section(1) of Section 86 to Pay the amount in the Division No.I, Office at Kottayam and produce before me the official receipt within 10 days from the date of Service of this notice failing which such arrears will be recovered as arrears of Public Revenue due on land and steps will be taken without further notice.” It is in pursuance thereto that the judgment of this Court in OP 14404/1992 (Ext.A18) and in W.A. 1050/1999 (Ext.A10) were passed. Even in Ext.A9, namely the order under challenge in the suit, the amount demanded is the arrears of rent payable in terms of the enhancement clause under Ext.A1. The above leaves no room for doubt that, the nature of demand/order against the plaintiff, which is challenged in the suit, is one for recovery of rent in terms of Section 86(1) of the Housing Board Act, 1971. Having concluded so, I proceed to discuss on the contentions regarding, alternate remedy of appeal against Ext.A9 order under Section 87 of the Act and the bar of jurisdiction under Section 89 of the Act. 12. Before I proceed to discuss on the above issues, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant provisions of the Act namely, Sections 86, 87 and 89. “86. Power to recover rent or damages as arrears of public revenue due on land.- (1) Subject to any rules made by the Government in this behalf and without prejudice to the provisions of section 85, where any person is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any Board premises the competent authority may by notice served (i) by registered post, or (ii) by affixing a copy of it on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of such premises, or (iii) in such other manner as may be prescribed, order that person to pay the same within such time not being less than ten days as may be specified in the notice. If such person refuses or fails to pay the arrears of rent within the time specified in the notice, such arrears may be recovered as arrears of public revenue due on land. (2) Where any person is in unauthorised occupation of any Board premises the competent authority may in the prescribed manner, assess such damages on account of the use and occupation of the premises as it may deem fit, and may, by notice served in the manner provided for service of notice under sub-section (1), order that person to pay the damages within such time as may be specified in the notice. If any person refuses or fails to pay the damages within the time specified in the notice, the damages may be recovered from him as arrears of public revenue on land. (3) No order shall be made under sub-section (2) until after the issue of notice in writing to the person calling on him to show cause, within such period as may be specified in such notice, why such order should not be made, and until his objection, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the same have been considered by the competent authority.” “87. Appeal.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority under section 85 or section 86 may, within one month from the date of service of the notice of such order, prefer an appeal to the Government : Provided that the Government may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of one month, if they are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. (2) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Government may, after calling for a report from the competent authority and after making such further inquiry, if any, as may be necessary pass such orders as they think fit, and the order of the Government shall be final. (3) On such appeal being preferred, the Government may stay the execution of the order of the competent authority for such period and on such conditions as they think fit.” “89. (3) On such appeal being preferred, the Government may stay the execution of the order of the competent authority for such period and on such conditions as they think fit.” “89. Bar of jurisdiction of Courts.-No order made by the Government or the competent authority in the exercise of any power conferred by or under this chapter shall be called in question in any court and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this chapter.” 13. Section 89 bars the jurisdiction of courts to challenge an order passed by the competent authority or the Government in exercise of powers conferred under the Chapter, including Sections 86 and 87. Section 87 provides for an appeal to the Government against an order passed by the competent authority under Section 85 and 86 of the Act. Noticeably, sub-clauses (1) and (2) of Section 86 deals with different situations. Section 86(1) deals with recovery of arrears of rent, and Section 86(2) deals with recovery of damages for use and occupation by a person in unauthorised occupation. In the case of recovery of damages for use and occupation under Section 86(2), Section 86(3) provides for issuance of a show-cause notice giving an opportunity of hearing, by calling forth his objections and evidence if any, in support of his objections, before passing orders under Section 86(2). Therefore, there is an opportunity of hearing, consideration of the objection and evidence, and an adjudication thereon. However, under Section 86(1) there is a stark difference. Section 86(1) stipulates only, a demand for payment of arrears of rent, and on failure to pay the same, its recovery by way of revenue recovery proceedings. It does not contemplate issuance of any show cause notice calling for objections and an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the objections and its consideration. In other words, there is no adjudication contemplated under Section 86(1) while passing an order for recovery of rent under Section 86(1). It is rather a summary procedure for recovery of rent without any adjudication. Without any adjudication by the original authority, there is no point in contending that there is an appeal provided for under Section 87 against an order under Section 86. It is rather a summary procedure for recovery of rent without any adjudication. Without any adjudication by the original authority, there is no point in contending that there is an appeal provided for under Section 87 against an order under Section 86. The appellate authority considers the correctness of the order passed by the original authority. There having been no such adjudicatory proceedings before the original authority, unlike that provided for under Sections 86(2) and (3), it is no solace to contend that there is an appellate remedy provided against an order under Section 86(1). As noticed, a proceeding under Section 86(1) can only be understood as a summary mode provided solely for the recovery of rent. 14. Here in the instant case, as noticed supra, the question involved is whether the Board is entitled to claim enhanced rent under the renewal clause in Ext.A1. A deed of renewal of rent was not executed. The consequence of the above are not matters which could be raised in a proceeding under Section 86(1). Under such circumstances, it could only be found that neither the alleged alternate remedy of appeal under Section 87(1) nor the bar of jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 89 of the Act apply in the instant case. The law is well settled that, a provision of law ousting the jurisdiction of Civil Court, is to be strictly construed. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature, except suits the cognizance of which is either expressly or impliedly barred. Exclusion of jurisdiction is not to be lightly inferred. (See VLNS temple v. I. Pattabirami Redi (1967) 1 SCR 280 ; Sahebgouda (Dead) by Lrs. And Ors. v. Ogeppa and Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 151 )]. On a reading of the plaint averments, it admits no doubt that, the challenge of the plaintiff is against the claim for enhanced rent under the renewal clause in Ext.A1, and the demand made thereunder. A plea of bar of jurisdiction of civil court is to be considered with due regard to the plaint averments in its entirety and not on a mere reading of the relief claimed in the plaint. A plea of bar of jurisdiction of civil court is to be considered with due regard to the plaint averments in its entirety and not on a mere reading of the relief claimed in the plaint. Here it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai and others ( AIR 2005 SC 2544 ). “A plea of bar to jurisdiction of a civil court must be considered having regard to the contentions raised in the plaint. For the said purpose, averments disclosing cause of action and the reliefs sought for therein must be considered in their entirety. The Court may not be justified in determining the question, one way or the other, only having regard to the reliefs claimed dehors the factual averments made in the plaint. The rules of pleadings postulate that a plaint must contain material facts. When the plaint read as a whole does not disclose material facts giving rise to a cause of action which can be entertained by a civil court, it may be rejected in terms of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 15. Even in a statute which provides an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court it would be relevant to examine the scheme of the Act and the adequacy or sufficiency of the remedies provided thereunder. In Dhulabhai and others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another ( 1968 (3) SCR 662 ), while laying down the principle relating to exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, the Apex Court held thus:- “Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.” 16. As noticed supra, in the case at hand there is hardly any remedy provided for the plaintiff to challenge a proceeding under Section 86(1) of the Act on the grounds urged by him. It is held that, the plea of the bar of jurisdiction and alternate remedy under Sections 89 and 87 of the Act are not attracted in the instant case. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 17. It is held that, the plea of the bar of jurisdiction and alternate remedy under Sections 89 and 87 of the Act are not attracted in the instant case. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 17. The claim under Ext.A9 being one for enhanced rent under the renewal clause of Ext.A1, and there having been no renewal of the lease, the demand for enhanced rent could not be sustained. Ext.A9 demand is thus, illegal. In the result, the Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The decree and judgment of the courts below are set aside. It is declared that the defendants are not entitled to realise any amount from the plaintiff under Ext.A9 order dated 07.11.1998. Parties to bear their respective costs.