Basant, J.

The common landlords are the revision petitioners in these petitions. Some of the legal heirs of the deceased tenants are the respondents. These cases have had a chequered history by now. Proceedings commenced as early as in 1967 by the landlords filing applications against all their tenants in a common building under Sections 11(3) and 11 (4) (iv) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Eviction was ordered both under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iv). The tenants preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority confirmed the direction under Section 11 (4)(IV) and set aside in direction under Section 11(3). Both parties preferred revisions before the District Court, the then revisional authority. The District Court confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority. Thereupon revision petitions were filed before this Court. The order under Section 11(4) (iv) was upheld. Execution was taken out. The order in the execution petition directing surrender was also challenged. To cut a long story short, the surrender of the building was effected by the tenants on 1.8.1991. The landlords effected reconstruction and the reconstruction was completed in 1992. Then started the next phase of litigation. The tenants wanted to be re-inducted into possession. The landlords resisted the claim. The Rent Control Court directed the landlords to put the tenants into possession under the third proviso to Section 11(4)(iv). That order was challenged before the Appellate Authority. The Appelate Authority turned down the challenge. It is in these circumstances that the landlords have come up before this court.

2. We must straight away observe that the respondents are not the original tenants. In one revision petition the respondents are the two sons of the deceased tenant and in the other the litigation has spread over to the next generation. The respondent/tenant is the grandson of the original evicted tenant.

3. Various contentions have been urged. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the landlords is that the third proviso speaks of the “tenant who was evicted” and that expression cannot include the legal heirs of the deceased evicted tenant. The expression ‘tenant’ is defined in Section 2(6) of the Act and includes ‘the heir or heirs of a deceased tenant’. Going by the definition is Section 2(6) the expression ‘the tenant who was evicted’ appearing in the third proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) must necessarily include the heirs of the deceased evicted tenant also. It is true that the definition clause opens with the words “unless the context otherwise requires”. But in the instant case we are satisfied that the expression the “tenant who was evicted appearing in the third proviso to Section 11(4) (iv) must necessarily take in the heirs of the deceased evicted tenant also. It is true that a Full Bench of this Court in P.M. Narayanan & ors. v. P.K. Shalima (2003 (1) KLJ 771) has taken the view that the expression ‘tenant’ in Section 11(17) cannot include the heirs of a deceased tenant, notwithstanding Section 2(6) of the Act. But that reasoning did appeal to the Full Bench only because of the peculiar nature of the protection granted to a tenant under Section 11(17). That dictum has obviously no application to the present situation under the third proviso to Section 11(4)(iv). The first contention must therefore fail.

4. Secondly the learned counsel for the landlords contends that the expression ‘the tenant who was evicted’ can take in only a tenant who in obedience to the order under Section 11(4)(iv) has surrendered the building and not one who dragged on the proceedings endlessly and was ultimately constrained in execution proceedings to surrender the building. This question was considered in detail by a Single Judge of this Court in George v. Narayani & ors. (1998 (1) KLJ 272). We are in complete agreement with the reasons given by the learned Si