Judgment :- 1. The tenant is the petitioner herein. The petition premises is situate at No. 49, Periakadai Street, Dindigul town. The petitioner herein is the tenant under the respondent herein. The petition for eviction was filed under S. 10 (3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the act’). In the beginning the respondent herein filed R.C.O.P. No. 106 of 1977 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and for owners occupation. The said petition was dismissed. The respondent herein stared a business of his own in manufacturing and sale of soap. He also obtained a licence for conducting the said business in the year 1981. At present, the respondent is carrying on his business at West Govindapuram under the name and style of “S. Kousalya Soap Works”. The respondent is conducting his business in a rented premises and he is paying a rent of Rs. 80 per month. The petition premises is situated in a commercial area. Therefore, the respondent re quires the petition premises for the purpose of conducting his soap business. Hence the petition for eviction was filed. 2. The petitioner herein who is the tenant contended that the petition for eviction was filed with a view to evict him on false ground. The requirement of the respondent herein of the petition premises is not bona fide . The respondent herein already filed a petition for eviction on the same ground in H.R C.O.P. No. 106 of 1977, which was dismissed. The respondent herein is not doing the soap business. The petition premises would not be suitable for soap manufacturing business. The tenant is doing tobacco business in the petition premises and a sum of Rs. 25,000 is due to him from various other parties. According to the tenant, if he is evicted that will cause great hardship to him. Therefore, it was submitted that there is no bona fide in requiring the petition premises by the landlord. 3. On considering the facts appearing in this case, the learned Rent Controller rejected the plea of the tenant and allowed the petition for eviction holding that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. Thereafter, the tenant filed an appeal before the Rent Control appellate authority. The Rent Control appellate authority also confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the tenant filed an appeal before the Rent Control appellate authority. The Rent Control appellate authority also confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. It is against this order, the pr;sent revision has been preferred by the tenant before this court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein submitted as under: The landlord herein has not made out a case for eviction under S. 10 (3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The eviction petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in S. 19 of the act. This ground was not considered by the authorities below. The earlier petition filed for eviction on the same ground was dismissed. Hence this petition should also be liable to be dismissed. There is no bonafide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises for his own business. The petition premises is neither suitable nor could be used for the purpose of manufacturing soap in view of the location, the size and want of water facilities. The petition premises is not situate in an industrial area. The premises in which the landlord is now carrying on his business is best suited and located in an industrial area. In support of the contentions put forward by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, reliance was placed on various decisions. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord contended as under:— The requirement of the landlord of the petition premises is bona fide . The fact that the earlier eviction petition filed on the same ground was dismissed would not operate as res judicata, since there is change of circumstances. When the earlier petition for eviction was filed, the landlord was not carrying on any business. But before filing the present petition for eviction, the landlord started his business in manufacturing and sale of soap. The landlord is not having any non-residential premises of his own in the town. He is carrying on the business in a rented premises The petition premises is suitable for his business, since it is located ill a commercial area. It was therefore pleaded that the authorities below were correct in coming to the conclusion that there is bona fide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises for his own business. It was therefore pleaded that the authorities below were correct in coming to the conclusion that there is bona fide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises for his own business. The learned counsel appearing on both the sides relied upon the following decisions in order to support their respective cases. B. Yamuna Bai v. N. Rangaswamy 1 , Srinivasan, minor by K. Kempu Chettiar v. S.S. Arumugham 2 , Abdul Rahman v. Sadasivam 3 , Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohanlal Sowcar 4 , A. Khan Mohamed v. P. Narayanan Nambiar and others 5 , A. Amirtharaj v. Dr. Mrs. K. Inyathi Ali 6 , Jaswant Singh v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, New Delhi 7 , K. Eswarsingh and others v. K. Mahadeva Singh and others 8 . 6. I have heard the rival submissions made by the parties. 7. The fact remains that the petitioner herein is the tenant under the respondent/landlord. The petition premises is a nonresidential building. The petitioner herein is carrying on his business in the petition premises. The landlord is a graduate, who is carrying on his business in manufacturing and sale of soap. He is doing his business in a rented premises. He is not having a premises of his own other than the petition premises in the town. The landlord filed Ex. A2 to A5 and Exs. A8 to A10 to prove that he is doing soap manufacturing business. Even the tenant admitted that the landlord is doing business in soap manufacturing. The tenant contended that the petition mentioned premises is not useful for manufacturing soap. According to the evidence produced by the landlords he is manufacturing soap business as a cottage industry and not in a large sole. The landlord also stated that the petition premises is sufficient for his business Therefore there is satisfactory evidence on the side of the landlord to prove that he is doing his own soap manufacturing business in a rented building. Admittedly, the landlord is doing soap manufacturing business, after obtaining proper licence. It is not for the tenant to say that the petition premises is neither suitable nor sufficient for the business conducted by the landlord. 8. Admittedly, the landlord is doing soap manufacturing business, after obtaining proper licence. It is not for the tenant to say that the petition premises is neither suitable nor sufficient for the business conducted by the landlord. 8. Another contention put forward by the learned counsel appearing for the tenant was that the landlord filed on an earlier occasion R.C.O.P. No. 106 of 1977 against the petitioner herein, for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and on the ground of requiring the petition premises for his own business. The said petition was dismissed. Even the appeal and the revision were also dismissed. Therefore, it was submitted that the earlier orders passed in the above said proceedings between the same parties would operate as res judicata as contemplated under S. 19 of the Act. Hence according to the learned counsel for the tenant, the present petition for eviction is not maintainable. The provisions contained in S. 19 of the act is clearly intended to bar frivolous application which may be made on the same grounds by the landlord for eviction against the tenant. Tn order to apply the provisions of S. 19 two important requisites must be present. One is that there must be identity of issues in the two proceedings and the other is that the former proceeding must have been decided on the very same issue which arises in the later proceedings. But it has no reference to different circumstances, which may exist at different times enabling the landlord to apply for eviction subsequently though his application for eviction might have been refused on an anterior date having regard to the circumstances than present. Only when there are new circumstances, which are material on which a new application is filed, the principle as stated in S. 19 of the Act would not stand in the way. According to the facts appearing in this case, before filing the R.C.O.P. No. 106 of 1977, the landlord was not doing any business. In the earlier proceedings he could not show that he was eapable of generating any capital to do the new business. He also stated in his evidence that since he being a graduate whenever he gets a job he will accept the same. Under those circumstances, the earlier petition for eviction was dismissed. But when the present petition was filed, the circumstances are entirely different. He also stated in his evidence that since he being a graduate whenever he gets a job he will accept the same. Under those circumstances, the earlier petition for eviction was dismissed. But when the present petition was filed, the circumstances are entirely different. On the date of filing of the present eviction petition, he was doing businesses in manufacturing and sale of soap. He was doing businesses in a rented premises. He also obtained licence for doing the same. In the earlier petition, he requires the petition premises for doing business in fertilizer and iron shop. Therefore, since there is change of circumstances, the principle of res judicata as adumbrated in S. 19 of the Act would not be applicable to the facts arising in this case. I have gone through the various decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing on both the sides But it remains to be seen that decision in each case depends upon its own facts. Considering the facts appearing in this case, in the light of the decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing on both sides, I hold that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities below in ordering eviction. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The tenant is given four months time to vacate the petition premises from the date of this order, on condition that he should file an affidavit of undertaking within two weeks to that effect, failing which the time granted for vacating the premises shall stand vacated.