ORDER : K. Harilal, J. 1. The tenant has come up in revision challenging the concurrent findings against him under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, "the Act"). It is the case of the tenant that the courts below have miserably failed to consider material evidence, while evaluating the bona fides of the need. Further, it is contended that, in the R.C(OP), the need projected by the landlady was one for starting a provision store. But, it has come out in evidence that the dependent of the landlady intends to start an electronic goods shop instead of provision store. That apart, earlier, the landlady has filed R.C(OP) No.6/2006 seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act against the same tenant and, in that case, he has surrendered one room, out of two rooms which were in his possession, pursuant to a compromise entered into between the landlady and the tenant and the need projected in that petition was also for starting a provision store. But, after getting vacant possession of one room, the landlady has let out that room to one Mahin. Thus, according to the tenant, the earlier conduct of the landlady would show that there was no bona fides in the same need projected in subsequent petition. But the courts below have omitted to consider the valuable evidence on record, which would negative the bona fides of the claim. 2. Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlady submits that even though in the earlier round of litigation the need projected was for starting a provision store and the landlady got vacant possession of one shop room out of two shop rooms which were in the possession of the tenant, she was compelled to assign the said room in favour of her daughter in connection with her marriage. Similarly, it is contended that the landlady has right to change the nature of business, if the business pleaded in the petition is not a feasible one due to subsequent changes. 3. Going by the impugned judgment passed by the courts below, it could be seen that in the earlier round of litigation between the same parties, the need projected was also the same and the tenant has surrendered one shop room out of two shop rooms which were in his possession. 3. Going by the impugned judgment passed by the courts below, it could be seen that in the earlier round of litigation between the same parties, the need projected was also the same and the tenant has surrendered one shop room out of two shop rooms which were in his possession. It has come out in evidence that subsequent to surrender of the said shop room, it was assigned in favour of her daughter and rented out to another person by name Mahin. The landlady has not denied the allegation that after the assignment in favour of the younger daughter the shop room was rented out to a third person, by name Mahin. 4. The short question that arises for consideration is, whether the subsequent change of the nature of business would be fatal to the bona fides of the need, in the instant case. 5. It is not disputed that in the earlier round of litigation between the same parties the very same need was projected and the same was accomplished by surrendering one shop room out of two shop rooms. It may be true that subsequently it was assigned in favour of the younger daughter in connection with her marriage. But, we are unable to understand the reason for letting out that shop room to a stranger instead of using the said shop room for starting the provision store. Had it been a bona fide need the dependent son could have started the provision store in that shop room instead of letting out the said shop room to a third party. Thus, the previous conduct of the landlady would prove the lack of bona fides of the need in the present petition. 6. Coming to the change in the nature of business, as rightly held by the court below, meticulous pleadings are not required in a summary proceedings. But, the application must contain necessary pleadings without particulars. We are of the opinion that the nature of the proposed business must be disclosed in the petition and if the landlady wants to change that business in view of the subsequent events after the filing of the petition, she must give special reasons for changing the nature of business. Thus, unless the change in the nature of the business is supported by sufficient reasoning, that will also tell upon the bona fides of the need. 7. Thus, unless the change in the nature of the business is supported by sufficient reasoning, that will also tell upon the bona fides of the need. 7. In the above analysis, we find that the earlier conduct of the landlady after getting vacant possession of one shop room and the change in the nature of business without sufficient reasoning would negative the bona fides of the need. But, the courts below failed to consider the aforesaid admitted facts while appreciating the bona fides of the need. Consequently, the impugned judgment and orders passed by the courts below will stand set aside and the Rent Control Petition will stand dismissed accordingly. This Rent Control Revision is allowed.