The principle of res judicata applies to prevent the re-agitation of issues that have been decided at an earlier stage of the same litigation, and the decision on the applicability of S.15 of the Act, which was allowed to become final at an earlier stage, cannot be re-agitated at a subsequent stage.

1. Leave 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-s. (3) of the S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act') is not barred by S.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 his bona fide requirement. The learned Rent Controller declined relief to the respondent on the ground that under S.15(3) of the Act the eviction petition was not maintainable. 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 confirmed in RCRP No. 42/89 by the District Judge, Thalassery, on December 3,1990. 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 confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery, in Rent Control Appeal No. 193 of 1991 on August 3, 1992. In Civil Revision Petition No. 2147 of 1992, filed by the appellants here in 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 S.15 of the Act does not bar the eviction proceedings against the appellants, had become final and cannot be re-agitated afresh. However, the High Court also recorded the finding that S.15 of the Act did not bar the subsequent eviction petition. In that view of the matter, 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.

4. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that the order passed by the appellate authority holding that the eviction petition was maintainable and that S.15 of the Act was not a bar, does not operate as res judicata. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel relies upon a judgment of this Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal & Ors. v. Smt. Deorajin Debi & Ann, 1960 (3) SCR 590.

5. We have perused that judgment. It is laid down therein that an interlocutory order which did not terminate the proceedings and which had not been appealed against either because no appeal lay or even though an appeal lay, an appeal was not taken, could be challenged in an appeal from the final decree or order. It was observed that inter locutory judgments which have the force of a decree must be distinguished from other interlocutory judgments which are a step towards the decision of the dispute between the parties by way of a decree or a final order. In that case, the question of applicability of S.28 of the Original Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 was held to be interlocutory in nature, falling in the latter category.

6. We may add that S.105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 specifically provides that any error, defect or irregularity in