ORDER : Somarajan, J. The revision is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority No.II, Thiruvananthapuram, by the tenant raising the following questions regarding the application of Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965, whether it is permissible for the landlord to change the purpose of the proposed need advanced under Section 11 (3) of the Act and whether it would take away the bona fides of the landlord, if it is found to be necessary in reference to the change of circumstance. 2. The factual situation of the case is that originally rent control proceedings were initiated by the landlord against the tenant raising a need for own occupation under Section 11(3) of the said Act. Initially, the claim under Section 11(3) was rejected by the Rent Control Court mainly on the ground that the nature of the need and the proposed purpose are not disclosed in the application and it was taken up in the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, who, in turn, allowed the application under Sections 11(3) and 11(2)(b) of the said Act. It was taken up before this Court and this Court remanded the matter back to the Rent Control Court so as to afford an opportunity to the landlord petitioner to raise additional pleadings under Section 11(3) of the said Act. Before the Rent Control Court, the petitioner did not disclose the nature of the need proposed. That was taken into account by this Court and felt that from the nature of the case it is proper to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to raise additional pleadings in the context of Section 11(3) of the said Act. It is thereafter that the Rent Control Court again considered the application and passed an order of eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the said Act. In Appeal, the order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) was vacated; but confirmed the order of eviction under Section 11(3), which is under challenge in this Revision. 3. The bone of contention between the parties is the lack of pleading in the Rent Control Petition as to the nature of the proposed business to be commenced by the landlord. Initially it was not disclosed in the petition. 3. The bone of contention between the parties is the lack of pleading in the Rent Control Petition as to the nature of the proposed business to be commenced by the landlord. Initially it was not disclosed in the petition. It was incorporated in the petition by way of an amendment pursuant to the order passed by this Court in R.C.R.No.365/2011, raising a need for commencing footwear business in the petition schedule building. 4. The bona fides of the petitioner is mainly challenged by the tenant on the reason that in the Memorandum of First Appeal, he had projected a need for commencing plywood business and it is specifically stated in the appeal memorandum. But, after the remand, the petition was amended by incorporating another need for starting a business of footwear. 5. The question to be considered is whether it is permissible for the landlord to change the nature of the need advanced if it was later found to be not profitable and whether such change of the nature of the need would take away the bona fides of the landlord, as envisaged under Section 11(3) of the Act. If the nature of the need advanced in the petition is found to be not profitable, it is well within the liberty of the landlord to select a suitable one and to change the nature of the need. But it should be satisfied before the Rent Control Court or the Rent Control Appellate Authority, as the case may be, that the change in the nature of the proposed need is bona fide. When there is an intention to change the nature of the business to a new one, rather than what is pleaded initially in the petition, the landlord should prove that the need initially raised was a bona fide one. The landlord should further establish why he had taken a different decision as to the nature of the business to be started. The burden, in such a situation, is heavy on the landlord to prove, (1) that the need advanced in the petition was bona fide, (2) that he had taken a decision to start another business and it was taken under a bona fide belief and good faith supported by sufficient grounds, and (3) that there are sufficient reasons for him not to start the earlier business proposed, otherwise it would fall within the mischief of inconsistency. 6. 6. In the present case, as discussed earlier in the Memorandum of First Appeal, the landlord has asserted thrice that he needs the building for his own occupation for the purpose of starting a plywood business. It was not disclosed in the Rent Control Petition at its first stage. It is settled that there should be specific pleading regarding the nature of need and the purpose, though meticulous pleadings are not necessary. But, it should be sufficient to convey what is actually intended by the petitioner so as to enable the opposite party to defend his case properly and effectively and to have a better understanding of the case advanced. It has come out from the records that the need advanced subsequent to the amendment is for starting a footwear business rather than what is stated in the Appeal Memorandum. No evidence was adduced and no materials were placed either before the Rent Control Court or appellate authority regarding under what circumstance the earlier proposed business of plywood was changed to a business of footwear. In the said circumstance, we are of the view that it is fit and proper to grant an opportunity to the landlord to establish his case. Hence, the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Rent Control Court, Nedumangad, for fresh consideration of the ground under Section 11(3) of the Act. The parties shall appear before the Rent Control Court, Nedumangad on 17.07.2017. Transmit the records immediately. No order as to costs.