The main legal point established in the judgment is that under sec.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, a landlord's son can be considered a dependent with a bona fide need for residential accommodation, and the de facto doctrine can save a judgment despite the lack of jurisdiction of the court.

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The appellant in R.C.A.No.79/2005 has come up in revision challenging the appellate judgment in the said appeal. The order of the Rent Controller in R.C.P.No.117/2000 dated 28.1.2005 is upheld by the impugned judgment dated 11.1.2007. The brief facts of the case are the following:

2. One Mr. Sreedharan who was a lunatic was the owner of 20 cents of land in which there were a few buildings. He was a bachelor and since there was no one to look after him, the District Court in a Lunacy O.P.151/1972 appointed Adv. Mr. P.P.Prathapan as the guardian of the said Sreedharan. The petitioner herein got the building on rental basis from the said court receiver. Sreedharan died on 24.1.1996. Later in 1998 the entire landed property of Sreedharan including the buildings thereon were handed over to the landlords, the respondents herein, by the court receiver as per order of the District Court in I.A.No.164/1998 in the above Lunacy O.P. The landlords in the year 2000 filed a few Rent Control Petitions against the various tenants in occupation of the aforementioned buildings. R.C.P.No.117/2000 was filed by the landlords against the petitioner herein who was occupying the building bearing door No.39/345. The grounds taken were under sec.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short, the Act). Mr. Ashok Kumar, the son of the 3rd respondent herein, required the said building for his residence. He has no residence of his own. He is depending upon the 3rd respondent herein, his mother, for his accommodation. He is married and he wants to have a separate residence. Neither the landlords nor Ashok Kumar have any separate building suitable for residential accommodation. The petitioner herein, the tenant which is a firm, is using the said building for the residential accommodation of its employees. The tenant resisted the application stating that the landlords have no title to the property. It was also asserted that Mr. Ashok Kumar is residing in his own house. There are several other buildings in the possession of Mr. Ashok Kumar in the city suitable for his residence. The purpose of getting the building evicted is to sell it, it was contended.

3. The trial of the Rent Control Petitions were held jointly. On the basis of the above pleadings the Rent Controller raised issues. From the side of the landlords PWs.1 to 4 were examined. From the side of the tenants RWs.1 to 4 were examined. Mr. Ashok Kumar was PW.4. Exts.A1 to A14 were marked from the side of the landlords and Exts.B1 to B14(a) were marked from the side of the tenants. As court exhibits Exts.C1, C1(a), C2 and C2(a) were also marked.

4. The Rent Controller allowed the applications on both grounds.

The Appellate Authority reversed the finding under sec.11(2), but affirmed the decision under sec.11(3). The revision petitioner attacks the said finding of the Appellate Authority under sec.11(3). In this revision also the dispute regarding title was raised. But, in view of the judgment rendered by us in R.C.Rev.463/2004, the said point does not survive for consideration. The other points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are the following:

1. Mr. Ashok Kumar is not a dependent for the purpose of sec.11(3) of the Act.

2. The bona fide need of Mr. Ashok Kumar is not established.

3. The case is governed by the first proviso to sec.11(3) as Mr. Ashok Kumar has got other suitable accommodation.

4. The learned Munsiff who heard the matter is not vested with the powers of the Rent Controller by appropriate notification under the Act. Therefore the order is passed without jurisdiction.

5. The first point was explained and amplified by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that the landlords have stepped into the shoes of the court receiver. The court receiver cannot have any dependent. Since the landlords stepped into his shoes, they also cannot have any dependent. So, Mr. Ashok Kumar cannot be treated as a depend