K.T. Sankaran, J.

1. The question that arises for consideration in this Rent Control Revision is whether a Rent Control Petition filed under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act') can be summarily rejected under Section 15 of the Act on the ground that the landlord did not press that ground in the earlier Rent Control Petition, in which Sections 11(3) and 11(8) were taken as the grounds for eviction.

2. The revision petitioners are the landlords of a building situated in Broadway, Ernakulam, in which the first respondent partnership runs a textile shop under the name and style 'Indian Saree House'. The learned counsel for the landlords submitted that the rent that is being paid by the tenant is only ?250/-for an area of about 600 sq. ft. in a building situated in the heart of Ernakulam City. The landlords filed R.C.P.No.154 of 2000 before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i), 11(4)(ii) and 11(8) of the Act.

3. At the time of hearing, landlords submitted that they were pursuing only Section 11(3) and not Section 11(8) of the Act. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition under Section 11(3) and rejected the petition on other grounds. The landlords as well as the tenants filed appeals before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed both the appeals. The tenant filed R.C.R.No.231 of 2005 before the High Court challenging the order and judgment of the authorities below under Section 11(3) of the Act. The said Rent Control Revision was disposed of by the judgment dated 12.6.2006. A contention was put forward by the tenants that the landlords having admitted that they are in occupation of a portion of the building, the ground under Section 11(3) would not be maintainable and eviction could be sought only under Section 11(8). That contention put forward by the tenants was accepted by this Court in the judgment, which is reported in Indian Saree House v. Radhalakshmy (2006 (3) KLT 129). The High Court thought, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, that the landlords should be permitted to withdraw the submission made before the Rent Control court that they were not pressing the ground under Section 11(8). After holding thus, the High Court considered the bonafides of the claim under Section 11(8) and it was held that the landlords have made out the bonafides to found a claim under Section 11(8). However, the authorities below had not considered the question of comparative hardship under the first proviso to Section 11 (10) of the Act, which is a mandatory requirement while disposing of an application under Section 11(8). Therefore, the High Court remanded the case to the Appellate Authority for the purpose of considering the limited question of comparative hardship under the first proviso to Section 11(8) of the Act.

4. The judgment of the High Court was challenged by the tenants before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.521 of 2008 held that the landlords having given up the ground for eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act, the High Court was not right in holding that the landlords had established their bonafides under Section 11 (8). The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court, and the eviction petition filed by the landlords was dismissed.

5. Two years after the disposal of the appeal by the Supreme Court, the landlords filed R.C.P.No.2 of 2010, claiming eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act. The tenants entered appearance before the Rent Control court and contended that the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable in the light of Section 15 of the Act and the petition is liable to be summarily rejected under Section 15 of the Act. The Rent Control Court rejected the contentions put forward by the tenants and held that the Rent Control Petition is not hit by Section 15 of the Act. The order of the Rent Control Court was challenged in appeal by the tenants be