P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

1. The decision in E.A.No.133 of 2013 in E.P.No.183 of 2012 in R.C.P.No.53 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode, as confirmed in appeal, is under challenge in this Second Appeal.

2. The facts relevant for examining the correctness of the impugned decision are the following:-

The grandfather of the second respondent filed R.C.P.No.53 of 2007 for eviction of the tenants from the petition schedule building therein, under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The need, on the basis of which eviction of the building was sought in the said proceedings, was that the second respondent, a dependent of the petitioner therein is unemployed and that she wants to run a nursery in the petition schedule building. Since the building was sought to be evicted for the requirement of the second respondent, when the eviction petition came up for trial, the second respondent also gave evidence. In her deposition as PW2, the second respondent has reiterated the stand taken in the eviction petition that she is unemployed and that therefore, she needs the petition schedule building for running a nursery. The rent control court accepted the case of the petitioner and ordered eviction. Though the matter was taken up by the tenants in appeal, the appellate court confirmed the decision of the rent control court. The tenants took up the matter in revision before this Court and this Court also confirmed the decision in the eviction petition. Thereupon, proceedings have been initiated for execution of the order of eviction by the legal representatives of the petitioner in the eviction petition including the second respondent. One Madayi Sreenivasan was the tenant of the premises. As he was no more at the time of filing of the eviction petition, the same was filed against his legal representatives. However, the appellants who were also the legal representatives of the deceased tenant were omitted to be arrayed as parties in the eviction petition. As such, the appellants filed E.A.No.133 of 2013 in the execution petition seeking a declaration that the order of eviction is void and not binding on them. According to the appellants, they are in possession of the suit premises and in so far as they are not parties to the eviction petition, the order of eviction cannot be enforced against them. In the course of the proceedings before the execution court, the appellants filed two applications, of which one was to cause production of a few documents and the other was seeking permission to serve interrogatories on the petitioners in the execution petition. In the affidavits filed in support of the above applications, it was alleged by the appellants that the second respondent was employed as an executive in a Software company called 'IBM' at the time of filing of the eviction petition and the order of eviction obtained suppressing the said fact is therefore void and unenforcible. According to them, the order of eviction, in the circumstances, can be construed only as one obtained by playing fraud on the court. The execution court rejected the said applications. The common order passed on the said applications was challenged by the appellants before this Court in O.P.(RC) No.2625 of 2013. This Court confirmed the decision of the execution court on the said applications holding that the case set up by the appellants in the applications, namely, that the order of eviction was obtained by playing fraud on the court has not been pleaded in E.A.No.133 of 2013. Thereupon, the appellants filed an application seeking leave of the court to amend E.A.No.133 of 2013 to incorporate therein an additional plea that the order of eviction was one obtained by playing fraud on the court. E.A.No.34 of 2014 was the application filed by the appellants for the said purpose. The execution court took the view that in so far as the application for amendment was filed after the dismissal of O.P.(RC).No.2625 of