The court emphasized that the issues raised in the previous and subsequent litigations must be substantially the same for the application of estoppel by res judicata under S.15 of the Act.

This is a revision petition filed by the tenant in a proceeding under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short the Act.

2. The landlady filed the petition for eviction of the tenant under S.11(3) of the Act. Now all the authorities including the revisional court have found that the landlady has established her case of bona fide need for own occupation and allowed the claim of the landlady.

3. The question regarding bona fide need is essentially a question of fact. Of course in certain circumstances, it may be linked up with questions of law. In AIR. 1980 SC. 1253 (Rajalakshmi Dyeing Works v. rangaswami) the Supreme Court has held that to hold that a question is a mixed question of fact and law is not sufficient to warrant the exercise of revisional power. The Court said:

'It must however, be shown that there was a taint of such unreasonableness resulting in a miscarriage of justice."

Since all the authorities have found that the landlady has established the bona fide need and no question of law is involved in this aspect of the case, I do not think that I can interfere with this finding of the lower authorities exercising my power under S.115 CPC. Further I see no tinge of unreasonableness in the conclusions of the lower authorities on this aspect.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner now submits that the petition filed by the landlady before the Rent Controller was liable to be dismissed under S.15 of the Act. This is the point she argued elaborately. In order to appreciate the submission of the counsel on this count, I feel that it is necessary to state concisely certain facts,

5. The building in question is now occupied by the tenant. The tenant is a Co-operative Society. The Society is running a printing press in the building. The husband of the landlady was the paid secretary of the society. The society advanced to the landlady an amount of Rs. 3.000/- for the construction of the building. The advance was on a hypothecation bond Ext. A1 executed by the landlady. Ext. A1 is dated l-12-1962. In the bond it is provided clearly that the building after the construction should be given on rent for five years to the society for the purpose of establishing a printing press by the society. Further it is seen provided in Ext. A1 that the Society can continue after; the said period of five years, if the period is -extended.

KLT. m, ex-servicemen's -co-op. society v. Rajamma. ( fargae, se Kalliath J.) 515

6: The husband of the landlady who was the secretary of the Society was dismissed from the service of the society on 8-l-1964. The landlady filed a rent control petition, O.P. 18/70 under S.11(3) of the Act. This application was allowed on 1-2-1972. The Society filed an appeal as R.C.A. 2/72. This appeal was allowed and the petition was dismissed.

7. The landlady had sold the building on 24-l-1972 under Ext. D11. But subsequently she purchased the building on 15-11-1976 under Ext. A2. Six years thereafter in 1982, the present rent control petition was filed as R.C.O.P. 4/82. The ground alleged, as stated earlier, is one under S.11(3) for bona fide need for own occupation of the landlady. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that in these circumstances the present petition is barred under S.15 of the Act.

8. This point was considered by the rent controller, appellate authority and the revisional court and they held against the revision petitioner. S.15 of the Act reads thus:

"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 subsection (8) of S.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 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