T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

The tenant is the revision petitioner. The question that arises is whether the landlord can maintain a subsequent petition for eviction of the tenant, if a previous application which was filed raising the same grounds, was dismissed as not pressed. The short facts are the following:

2. The present petition for eviction was filed under Section 11 (2) (b) (arrears of rent) and 11 (3) (bona fide need for own occupation), of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’). The premises was let out on 8.3.1984 for a monthly rent of Rs.275/-. the landlord gifted the same to the respondent herein, his son on 2.5.1997. The respondent herein filed R.C.P. No.26/1997, before the Rent Control Court, Kalpetta for an order of eviction under Sections 11 (2) (b) and 11 (3) of the Act. The premises were required for starting grocery business. It was dismissed as not pressed on 11.05.1998. Later on, the present R.C.P. No.16/1998 was filed for starting grocery business.

3. The tenant mainly contended that the dismissal of the earlier petition on identical grounds is a bar to maintain the present petition. The bona fide purpose pleaded by the landlord was also resisted. The Rent Controller found that the bona fide need alleged is genuine and the rent is in arrears from November 1995 onwards. It was also found that the tenant is not depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business therein and that other suitable buildings are available in the locality for the tenant to carry on business. Therefore, the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act was also found against the tenant. But the eviction petition was dismissed after finding that in view of the dismissal of the earlier petition as not pressed, the eviction petition is not maintainable. This finding was rendered after noticing that Order 23 Rule 1 (4) of the C.P.C. is applicable to rent control proceedings.

4. The landlord filed appeal under Section 18 of the Act, which was allowed by the appellate authority. The findings on the grounds for eviction have been confirmed and it was also found that the tenant is not entitled to the protection under the first and second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in N.R. Narayan Swamy v. Francis Jagan (AIR 2001 SC 2469,) it was held that as the provisions of Order 23 rule 1 (4) C.P.C. have no application to proceedings under the Rent Control Act, the dismissal of the earlier petition as not pressed, is not a bar and therefore the eviction petition is maintainable.

5. We heard learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.B. Krishnan submitted that as far as the Kerala Act is concerned, the bar is provided under Section 15 of the Act and therefore, the question has to be examined within the four corners of the said provision. It was submitted that the provision that was considered by the Apex Court in N.R. Narayan Swamy v. Francis Jagan (AIR 2001 SC 2469) under the Karnataka Act is entirely different and therefore the said decision is distinguishable.

6. First, we will refer to Section 15 of the Act. It bears the heading “Decisions which have become final, not to be reopened.” The same is extracted below:

“15. Decisions which have become final not to be reopened:--

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 this Act or under the corresponding provisions of any law in force prior to the commencement of this Act or the corresponding provisions of any law repealed or superseded by such law.”

Going by the section, the bar applies if “substantially the same issues as have b