(1) THE tenant is in appeal before us. The respondent who is the landlady of the premises in dispute filed a petition before the Rent Control Court for eviction of the appellant herein on the grounds that she bona fide needs the building for the occupation of her married daughter and son-in-law who are medical practitioners and also for demolition of the premises and its reconstruction. The Rent Control Court found that there is no relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. Therefore, the petition filed by the landlady was dismissed. Aggrieved, the landlady filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Control Court. The appellate court found that the need of the landlady is bona fide and the building required demolition for reconstruction. Aggrieved, the tenant preferred a revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The learned District Judge found that the landlady has neither pleaded the material ingredients of Section 11(3) of the Act in her petition for eviction nor led any evidence in that respect. Therefore, she was not entitled to succeed. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed and the order of the appellate court was set aside. The landlady thereafter preferred a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court challenging the order passed by the learned District Judge in his revisional jurisdiction. The High Court was of the view that the revisional court acted in excess of its jurisdiction conferred upon it and thus set aside the said order and the writ petition was allowed.

(2) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant urged that in the absence of any pleading in the petition and evidence to the effect that the married daughter and son-in law are dependent on the landlady, the petition filed by the landlady for eviction of the appellant was liable to be rejected and the revisional court acted within its jurisdiction when it set aside the order of the appellate court. On the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the first question that arises for consideration is whether the landlady was required under law to plead and substantiate that her married daughter and the son-in-law for whose occupation the building was required were dependent on her. The relevant portion of Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is extracted below:

"11. (3) A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him."

(emphasis supplied) Language of Section 11(3) of the Act is plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. A perusal of Section 11(3) shows that if the landlord is in bona fide need of the building for occupation by any members of the family dependent on him he may apply to the Rent Control Court for eviction of the tenant. Thus where eviction of a tenant is sought by a landlord for occupation of any member of his family, the landlord is required to plead and substantiate three ingredients. Firstly, a person for whose need the premises is required is a member of the landlords family. Secondly, such member of the family is dependent on the landlord and thirdly, there is a bona fide need. In the absence of any one of the three ingredients, the petition by a landlord under Section 11(3) would fail. In the present case, what we find is that, there was pleading to the effect that the building is needed for the married daughter and son-in-law. However, there is no pleading as regards the fact that the married daughter and the son-in-law are dependent on the landlady. The word "family" has not been defined in the Act. However, for the sake of argument we may assume that the married daughter and son-in-law are members of the landladys family. In that c