ORDER

Leave is granted.

2. The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: whether the order of remand passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Payyannur, dated November 25, 1988, holding that the second eviction petition (RCP No. 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 not barred by Section 15 of the Act, can be permitted to be re-agitated in proceeding arising from the order passed by the Rent Controller pursuant to the order of remand.

3. The appellants are the tenants of the petition schedule building of which the respondent is the landlord. 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 could not be passed on the ground that no alternative accommodation was available for the appellants in the locality. The respondent, thereafter, initiated the proceedings for eviction of the appellants, out of which this appeal arises, on the ground of hi