Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. Revision petitioner is the landlord in R.C.P. 3/87. Eviction was sought under S.11(2)(b),11(3),11(4)(v) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & rent) Control Act. 2. Rent Control Court rejected the petition on the ground that the same was hit by S.15 of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. With regard to the payment of arrears of rent the matter was independently considered and Rent Controller took the view that the tenant had not defaulted payment of rent. Aggrieved by the said order appeal was preferred by landlord as R.C.A. 205 of 1989. Before the appellate Authority the only ground for eviction canvassed by the counsel for the landlords is under S.11(3) of Act 2/65. appellate Authority also concerned with the finding of Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same landlord has come up in revision. 3. The only question that has come up for consideration in this case is as to whether R.C.P. 3.87 preferred by the landlord is hit by S.15 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & rent) Control Act. S.15 of the Act reads as follows: "The Rent Control Court shall summarily reject any application under sub-s.(2), (3), (4), (5), (7) or sub-s.(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 or purports to 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provisions of any law in force prior to the commencement of this Act or the corresponding provision of any law repealed or superseded by such law". In order to decide as to whether the present application under S.11(3) of the Act is to be summarily rejected or not the court has to consider whether the petitioner had raised substantially the same issues in earlier proceeding under the Rent Control Act and the Court has finally decided the said issue in those proceedings between the same parties. 4. Petitioner - Landlord was an employee of K.S.R.T.C. After retirement, he wanted to start a business in the petition schedule room., Accordingly he had filed RCP 19/83 for eviction of the building under S.11 (2), 11(3), 11(4) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & rent ) Control Act 2/ 65 before Rent Control Court, Trivandrum. 4. Petitioner - Landlord was an employee of K.S.R.T.C. After retirement, he wanted to start a business in the petition schedule room., Accordingly he had filed RCP 19/83 for eviction of the building under S.11 (2), 11(3), 11(4) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & rent ) Control Act 2/ 65 before Rent Control Court, Trivandrum. After considering the entire matter Rent Control Court, Trivandrum came to the following conclusion: "In view of this decision it has to beheld that the failure to disclose the particulars of the business proposed to be sought for is fatal to this petition and it is came out in evidence that the petitioner has got another employment after retirement In the circumstances it is found that the petitioner does not need the petition schedule building bonafide." The said order was produced before Rent Control Court as Ext. B1. In the present petition the bonafide need alleged is as follows: "The petitioner was serving in K.S.R.T.C. Kerala State and now is retired from service. The petitioner has at present no job. The petitioner bonafide ly needs the said shop room for conducting the business of sub agency of selling sanitary goods. The petitioner has at present no source of income and hence the petitioner is in necessity to conduct the aforesaid business and achieve profit for his livelihood of his large family". Petitioner has not pleaded or proved that there is any change of circumstances existing at the time of filing the present petition for eviction. The circumstances we get in the year 1983 may be different in the year 1987 when the present Rent Control Petition was filed. The need of a landlord may change depending upon various facts and circumstances. 4. When the claim of bonafide need was already raised on earlier occasion and the same was decided between the same parties the burden is entirely on the landlord to establish that the subsequent petition is maintainable due to changed circumstances. In other words, the burden is on the landlord to establish that the rent control petition is not liable to be rejected summarily since the issue which was raised and finally decided between the parties is not substantially the same. Petitioner has not established or pleaded that the present petition is maintainable due to changed circumstance when the same was sought to be resisted by the tenant. Petitioner has not established or pleaded that the present petition is maintainable due to changed circumstance when the same was sought to be resisted by the tenant. It is an admitted fact that when the earlier rent control petition was filed, petitioner was a retired employee of K.S.R.T.C. Petitioner was also working as Assistant Accountant in a private enterprises by name'Chellam Enterprises'. When the petitioner was examined as PW-1 in this proceedings he admitted in cross-examination that the circumstances which were in existence when RCP 19/83 was filed continued. His own admission would indicate that there is no change in the circumstances. It is under the above mentioned circumstances both the courts below came to the conclusion that the present petition is hit by S.15 of the Rent Control Act. 5. The scope of S.15 of the Act came up for consideration before this Court in Govindan v. Subaida Beevi (1997 (1) KLT 910). The Division Bench held as follows: "Turning to the applicability of S.15 of the Act, the first thing to be noted is that it refers only to issues finally decided or purports to have been decided in a former proceeding under the Act or under the corresponding provisions of law in force prior to the commencement of the Act or the corresponding provisions of law repealed or superseded by such law, as the sole or main basis forgiving effect to the statutory mandate given to the Rent Control Court to summarily reject an application filed under sub¬ss.(2), (3), (4), (5), (7) & (8) of S.11 of the Act. Of course, the section also insists that the issues decided or purported to have been decided must be substantially same and that parties to the proceedings must also be same or are parties under whom they or any of them claim". In the instant case on facts and also on the basis of the clear admission made by the petitioner himself both the courts have concurrently held that there is no change in the circumstances. The bonafide need raised by petitioner remains the same while RCP 19/83 was filed at the time of filing of R.C,P. 3/87. Under such circumstances we are of the view that the courts below have correctly come to the conclusion that the present petition is hit by S.15 of the Act. Accordingly, the revision petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed.