K.T. Sankaran, J.

The question involved in this Rent Control Revision is whether an order summarily rejecting an application under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is appealable under Section 18 (1) (b) of the Act.

2. The respondent-landlord filed the Rent Control Petition under Section 11 (3) of the Act. In the Rent Control Petition itself, mention was made about RCP No.126 of 1994 filed by the landlord and others on an earlier occasion. The tenant entered appearance in the present case and raised a contention that the present Rent Control Petition is hit by Section 15 of the Act.

3. The Rent Control Court, on a perusal of the pleadings and documents, found that the landlord had filed R.C.P. No. 126 of 1994 under Section 11 (3) of the Act and that application was dismissed. The appeal therefrom was also dismissed. In revision, as CRP No. 2427 of 2002, this Court directed the tenant to vacate a portion of the building. The Rent Control Court in the present case found that even according to landlord, the petition schedule building in the present Rent Control Petition is that part of the building in respect of which eviction was declined in the earlier round of litigation. On that basis, the Rent Control Court found that the present Rent Control Petition is barred by Section 15 of the Act. Accordingly, the Rent Control Petition was rejected summarily.

4. The landlord filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the order of the Rent Control Court summarily rejecting the Rent Control Petition. Before the Appellate Authority, the tenant raised a contention that the appeal before the Appellate Authority was not maintainable.

5. The Appellate Authority held that the appeal is maintainable under Section 18 (1) (b) of the Act. On the merits of the case, the Appellate Authority held that to arrive at a proper finding as to whether the Rent Control Petition is barred under Section 15 of the Act, the landlord should be given an opportunity to adduce evidence. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the trial court and remanded the case to the Rent Control Court for fresh disposal of the question whether the Rent Control Petition is liable to be rejected summarily. The tenant has come up in revision challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority.

6. Section 15 of the Act provides that the Rent Control Court shall summarily reject any application under sub-section (2), (3), (4), (5), (7) or sub-section (8) of Section 11, which raises between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim substantially the same issues as have been finally decided or purports to have been finally decided in a former proceeding under the Act.

7. Section 18 of the Act provides for appeal. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 18 provides that any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control Court may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Appellate Authority having jurisdiction.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submitted that an appeal is provided only against an order. In a case where a Rent Control Petition is summarily rejected under Section 15 of the Act, no order would be passed by the Rent Control Court as per the Act. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that summary rejection of the Rent Control Petition is only a proceeding and not an order. The learned counsel submitted that, if that be the position, no appeal would lie against an order rejecting the Rent Control Petition summarily.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the Rent Control Court had passed an order in the present case and it is seen from the copy of the order produced before this Court. Moreover, the expression that "the Rent Control Court shall summarily reject any application" occurring in Section 15 of the Act does n