Point of Law: Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code contains comprehensive principles relating to finality of litigation and it lays down the principles of res judicata, which rests on the famous legal maxims Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (means that it is in the interest of the State that there be a limit to litigation).

ORDER :

Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.

The respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.7 of 2015 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Tirur, is the petitioner. The landlord has filed the rent control petition seeking eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. It was allowed. The appeal filed by the petitioner herein as R.C.A.No.43 of 2018 under Section 18(1) (b) of the Act was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Tirur. Feeling aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 20 of the Act. For convenience, the parties are referred to as stated in the Rent Control Petition.

2. The rent control petition was filed by the landlord claiming eviction on the ground of bona fide need. The need urged was that the landlord wanted to start hotel business in the petition schedule shop rooms. It was further contended that the petition scheduled shop rooms are the most suitable rooms since it has direct access from Kuttipuram bus stand. The claim of the landlord was resisted by the tenant by contending that the petition is hit by Section 15 of the Act since very same need was urged by the landlord in another petition which was dismissed and that the landlord has another building on the immediate east of the petition schedule building wherein a book stall was being conducted by the landlord and it was let out to another person after sending notice to the tenant and the bona fide need now put forth is not genuine. It was further contended that the tenant is depending upon the income derived from the petition schedule shop rooms and is entitled to get protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

3. Evidence in the case consists of oral testimonies of PW1 and RWs.1 and 2, Exts.A1 to A11, B1 series and X1 to X5. The Rent Control Court, after deliberating upon the said evidence and on hearing both sides, found that the need urged by the respondent-landlord was bona fide and that the petitioner is liable to be evicted. Challenge made by the petitioner to the order of eviction by filing appeal before the Appellate Authority was not successful. Hence, filed this revision.

4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Sethumadhavan instructed by Advocate Smt.N.Deepa appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Vinod Ravindranath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The issues that arise for consideration in this Rent Control Revision are, whether the petition is hit by section 15 of the Act, whether the need of the landlord is bona fide, whether the tenant is entitled to protection under first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act and whether any interference is warranted on the judgment in R.C.A.No.43 of 2018 whereby the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court in R.C.P No.7 of 2015 stands confirmed.

6. The petition schedule shop rooms are on the ground floor of a three storeyed building belonging to the landlord.

The tenant took the petition schedule shop rooms for conducting a textile business. The landlord intends to start a hotel business. The petition schedule shop rooms are facing the Kuttipuram bus stand which is in a prime commercial area.

7. Challenging the order of eviction, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that earlier the landlord had filed a rent control petition urging the very same relief, need and purpose and the said petition was dismissed by the rent control court finding that there is no bona fide need. Therefore, the eviction sought for the same relief, which was canvassed by the landlord in the earlier rent control petition, is hit by Section 15 of the Act. It is also submitted that, PW1 himself admitted that there is no change of circumstances for filing a second petition and unless and until the landlord proves that there is a change of circumstance, the petition is hit by Section 15 of the Act. The learned counsel also relied on the decisions reported in Lakshmi v. Labbah Kunju Ameer Hamsa (20