The main legal point established is that for a rent control petition, the petitioner must prove a change of circumstance after the dismissal of an earlier petition and failure to do so can result in the petition being barred by Section 15 of the Act.

ORDER :

K. Harilal, J.

1. This rent control revision is directed against an order passed in R.C.A. No. 36/2013, by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirur. The revision petitioner is the landlord who is confronting with an order, dismissing the rent control petition, on a finding that the same is barred under Section 15 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short]. Though he had preferred the aforesaid appeal, the rent control appellate authority also confirmed the findings of the rent control court and dismissed the same. Thus this revision is filed challenging the concurrent findings, whereby the rent control petition stands dismissed under Section 15 of the Act.

2. The revision petitioner had preferred R.C.P. No. 57/2012 against the respondent herein under Section 11(2), 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The revision petitioner bona fide needs the plaint schedule shop room for conducting the business of grocery items and he has no avocation at present and he has financial capacity and ability to conduct the grocery business. He is in need of the plaint schedule quarters for the residence of his employees and also for storing articles. He has no other buildings of his own in his possession to start the proposed business. The respondent is not mainly depending upon the income from the business in the tenanted premises and also several other vacant rooms are available in the locality to shift his business. So the revision petitioner is entitled to get an order of eviction under Sections 11(3) of the Act. The respondent is using acid and other things in the plaint schedule shop room and the value and utility of the building has been reduced due to the careless act of the respondent. The respondent has made alterations and illegal constructions in the building. So he is entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(iv) (ii) of the Act. Though the rent was re-fixed @ Rs. 2,500/- per month from 01.05.2011 onwards as per the order of this Court in R.C.R. No. 77/2011, the respondent has kept the rent in arrears and he is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 58,670/- towards the arrears of rent. So he is entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(2) of the Act.

3. The averments in the rent control petition can be summarised as follows: The plaint schedule building includes a shop room and quarters. Though the quarters was let out for residential purpose, the respondent has shifted his residence and let out the same to other persons for higher rent. The respondent is residing in the house bearing No. 1/41G of Tirur Municipality. The respondent has taken on lease another room also bearing No. 8/494B in a building owned by E.K. Hydru and E.K. Mamootty, which is situated near to the petition schedule shop room and the respondent and his wife are running a battery sales and service shop, by name, 'Charge Home' in that room. Though the revision petitioner has filed R.C.P. No. 19/2007 for eviction on the ground of bona fide need, the same was dismissed. The appeal and revision filed against the order also were dismissed due to technical reasons and insufficient pleadings. The circumstances have changed from that at the time of filing R.C.P. No. 19/2007. Hence he prayed for an order of eviction under Section 11(2), 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act.

4. The respondent filed counter statement mainly contending that the present rent control petition is barred by Section 15 of the Act. Earlier R.C.P. No. 19/2007 and the present R.C.P. No. 57/2012 were filed on the very same grounds, without any change of circumstance. The revision petitioner has no bona fide need to start a new business and it is a ruse for eviction only. He is entitled to get protection under the proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The allegation that the respondent has refused to pay the rent and the rent is in arrears is not correct. According to the respondent, he used to send the