JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have compromised the matter and, therefore, the present appeal has become infructuous.

2. The appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. C.A. No. 1817/2004

3. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.1.2003 passed by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in CRP No. 234/1997 whereby the learned Full Bench has answered the question referred to it by the Division Bench and while answering the question referred to it, the Full Bench itself decided the case on merits. The grievance of the appellant herein is that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Kesho Nath Khurana Vs. Union of India and Others 1981 (Supp) SCC 38 and Kerala State Science & Technology Museum Vs. Rambal Co. and Others (2006) 6 SCC 258, the Full Bench should not have gone on the merits of the matter and the Full Bench should have after answering the reference remitted the matter back to the Division Bench for deciding the Civil Revision Petition.

4. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that a Reference was made by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kearala, which reads as under :- "Are the legal heirs of a deceased tenant entitled to the protection of Section 11(17) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act?"

5. This Reference was answered by the Full Bench in para 18 of the impugned order in the following words,

"the benefits under Section 11(17) to the legal heirs/tenants cannot be accepted as laying down the correct law." In para 19 of the impugned order the learned Full Bench asked counsel for both the parties to advance arguments on merits also as the proceedings were initiated about a decade back and asked counsel for the parties for disposing of the revision petition itself and accordingly arguments were heard on merits of the Revision Petition also and Revision Petition was disposed of by dismissing the same and directing the appellant- tenant to surrender possession within six months and directing the appellant to file an affidavit of undertaking to that effect.

6. Aggrieved against the said order dated 31.1.2003 of the Full Bench, the present appeal by special leave has been filed before this Court.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The principal submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Full Bench should not have disposed of the revision petition on merits. He further submitted that once the Court directed the counsels for the parties to make submission on merits, they had no option but to address the Court on merits of the matter. He, however, submitted that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the cases of Kesho Nath (supra) and Kerala State Science (supra) the Full Bench should not have decided the revision petition on merits and after answering the reference made to it by the Division Bench, it should have remitted the revision petition to the Division Bench for decision in accordance with law. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant appears to be correct.

8. In the case of Kesho Nath (supra), in almost identical situation, this Court has taken the view that when a reference is made to a larger Bench, the larger Bench should answer the reference and thereafter remit the case to the appropriate Bench for decision on merits. In that case also the learned Single Judge had referred the matter to the Division Bench on the question "whether the order dated January 21, 1963 made by the Settlement commissioner was final and binding in the present appeal, and if so, what is its effect upon the point in controversy in the present appeal?" The Division Bench by order dated April 7, 1980 disposed of the appeal on merits and dismisse