P.N. Ravindran, J.

1. The petitioners are the tenants in RCP No. 8 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Sulthan Bathery, a petition filed by late K.M. Varghese, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein, for an order of eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. The landlord had in the petition for eviction averred that the rent is in arrears ever since the date of entrustment, viz.; 17/12/2002 and that he bona fide needs the petition schedule building to start a super market. The tenants entered appearance and filed a counter statement resisting the petition for eviction. Before the Rent Control Court, the landlord examined himself as PW 1 and produced and marked Exts. A1 to A3. On the side of the tenants, the first respondent before the Rent Control Court was examined as RW 1. The Rent Control Court considered the rival contentions and held that the rent is in arrears from the year 2003 and consequently, the tenants are liable to be evicted under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. The prayer for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act was declined. An order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act was accordingly passed on 20/03/2013.

2. Aggrieved thereby, the tenants filed RCA No. 13 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kalpetta. The said appeal was filed on 26/06/2013 with a delay of 68 days. The tenants had therefore filed IA No. 245 of 2013, to condone the delay in filing RCA No. 13 of 2013. After notice on IA No. 245 of 2013 to condone the delay in filing RCA No. 13 of 2013 was issued, the landlord, the sole respondent in RCA No. 13 of 2013 and IA No. 245 of 2013 passed away on 31/08/2013. The appellants did not however take steps to implead the legal heirs of the deceased landlord as parties to RCA No. 13 of 2013. IA No. 245 of 2013 to condone the delay of 68 days in filing RCA No. 13 of 2013 was heard and dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kalpetta by order passed on 06/12/2013. Consequently, RCA No. 13 of 2013 was dismissed.

3. The tenants thereupon filed RCR No. 290 of 2014 in this Court joining the deceased landlord as the sole respondent. The said revision petition was admitted and notice ordered to the respondents on 05/11/2014. The notice issued to the respondent landlord from this Court on 09/12/2014 with the hearing date fixed as 05/01/2015 was returned with the endorsement that he is no more. Thereafter, to be exact on 15/01/2015, the legal heirs of the landlord (the respondents in the instant revision petition) filed IA No. 153 of 2015 in RCR No. 290 of 2014, praying that they may be impleaded as additional respondents 2 to 5 therein. That application was heard and allowed by this Court by order passed on 22/01/2015. By a separate order passed on the very same day, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of RCR No. 290 of 2014, after entering a finding that the delay of 68 days in filing RCA No. 13 of 2013 should have been condoned, with the following observations/directions:

"3. The only question that arises now for our consideration is whether the delay of 68 days in filing the Rent Control Appeal was satisfactorily explained by the petitioners. Having gone through the material available and also on hearing the parties on either side, we are inclined to think that there was satisfactory explanation for the delay and therefore the delay ought to have been condoned. But, however, there is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that in the absence of the legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent on the party array, the appeal or the application for condonation of delay could not have been maintained. Therefore, the conclusion of the delay petition shall be subject to the petitioners' filing of applications for bringing the appropriate parties on record in the appeal filed by them.

4. Accordingly, we dispose of th