Judgment :- 1. No interference is called for with the order of the learned judge who dismissed the appellant's writ petition filed to quash the order of the Land Tribunal, directing the shifting of the kudikidappu to the alternate site that was offered by the 1st respondent landlord. Counsel for the appellant argued that the application for shifting which was ordered by the Land Tribunal was barred by res judicata as a prior application for shifting on on the ground of bona fide requirement for expanding the 1st respondent's industry (saw mill) was dismissed on the ground of unsuitability of the alternate site. We do not think that a case for res judicata can be made out on this ground. A bona fide requirement which did not exist on a previous occasion may well crop up on a subsequent one; and a site unsuitable on a prior occasion may well become, or be rendered, suitable on a subsequent one. In that sense, we do not think that a plea of res judicata in the broad and unqualified form in which it has been raised by the appellant could be sustained. The learned judge was right in rejecting the same. We may also point out that objection raised on the ground of res judicata was not raised before the Land Tribunal 2. Counsel for the appellant contended that the decision of the Land Tribunal was based on a complete absence of any evidence. It is difficult to sustain this argument, as the learned judge has noticed that there was some material before the Land Tribunal, which it accepted, and on the basis of which it directed shifting of the kudikidappu. The sufficiency and the acceptability of the said material is not for this Court to consider in these proceedings. 3. It was then contended that during the pendency of the writ petition, the 1st respondent had abandoned his interest in the saw mill. The contention was based on an affidavit filed by the writ petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. We have examined the allegation and we are not prepared to hold on the strength of the averments therein that the 1st respondent had become disentitled to pursue or to prosecute his application for shifting the kudikidappu. 4. We dismiss this appeal, but in the circumstances, without costs. Dismissed.