The respondent, thereafter, initiated the proceedings for eviction of the appellants, out of which this appeal arises, on the ground of his bona fide requirement, The learned Rent Controller declined relief to the respondent on the ground that under Section 15 3 of the Act the eviction petition was number maintainable.
13/87 filed by the respondent against the appellants under sub section 3 of Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings lease and Rent Control Act, 1965 for short, the Act is number barred by Section 5 of the Act, can be permitted to be reagitated in proceeding arising from the order passed by the Rent Controller pursuant to the order of remand.
After remand, the learned Rent Controller found that the need of the respondent was bona fide, and alternative accommodation in the area was available, so allowed the eviction petition on September 25, 1991 which was companyfirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery, in Rent Control Appeal No.
On November 25, 1988 the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the respondent holding that the eviction petition was maintainable and remanded the case to the Rent Controller for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law which became final as that order was companyfirmed in RCRP No, 42/ 89 by the District Judge, Thalassery, on December 3, 1990.
2147 of 1992, filed by the appellants herein before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, against the said order of the Appellate Authority, it was held that the earlier order of the Appellate Authority holding that Section 15 of the Act does number bar the eviction proceedings against the appellants, had become final and cannot be re agitated afresh.
In the first round of litigation between the parties for eviction of the appellants from the schedule building, it was held that the requirement of the son of the respondent was bona fide but eventually the order of eviction companyld number be passed on the ground that numberalternative accommodation was available for the appellants in the locality.
193 of 1991 on August 3, 1991, In Civil Revision Petition No.
However, the High Court also recorded the finding that Section 15 of the Act did number bar the subsequent eviction petition.
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed by the High Court on July 6, 2002.
That order of the High Court is appealed against before this Court, by special leave.
The appellants are the tenants of the petition schedule building of which the respondent is the landlord.
