Radhakrishnan, J.

Is the non-examination of the dependent son of the landlord is fatal to a petition filed under section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965 is the question that is germane for consideration in this case. The Rent Control Appellate Authority placing reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Thomas v. Kochammini Amma, AIR 1995 Kerala 4 took the view that it is fatal to a plea under section 11(3) since the need urged is for the bonafide need of the son of the landlord.

2. Eviction was sought for, for the bona fide need of the landlord’s son Majeed who is married and has got three children. For eking out his livelihood, Majeed wanted to start a stationary business. No other suitable building is in their possession. It was pleaded by the landlord that his son is dependent on him. He is not having any other building of his own or any other avocation. Landlord also contended that rent is in arrears since March 1993. Tenant resisted the petition contending that attempt of the landlord is only a ruse to evict him. Further it was also stated that the landlord’s son is assisting the landlord for the conduct of his trade. Landlord is a butcher and a vendor in meat and son is in total control of the said business. Consequently son has no intention to start any stationary business. Further it is also stated that he is not dependent on the landlord. Further tenant submitted that he is entitled to get benefit of second proviso to section 11(3).

3. Landlord got himself examined as PW1 and gave oral evidence according to the averments in the rent control petition. Landlord produced A1 and A2 documents. Tenant was examined as RW1. Rent Control Court after considering oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the need is bona fide and also found that landlord is entitled to get rent from April 1993 onwards. Tenant took up the matter in appeal. Appellate Authority took the view that the non-examination of landlord’s son is fatal to the petition filed under section 11(3) of the Act. Appellate Authority held that the contentions raised by the tenant could be satisfactorily explained only if the son is examined and record the following reasoning’s.

“According to the learned counsel facts revealed in this case would further show that a father comes forward to establish the bona fide need of his son who is having wife and three children, so according to the counsel son would be the best person to reveal all the facts before court to establish his bona fide need. There is some force in this contention. PW1 has baldly stated that his son has no other business and no source of income. It remains unexplained as to how Majeed lived till this time and maintained a family consisting wife and the three children without a job or source of income of his own. These facts could have been explained by him in a more satisfactory manner. Hence I find that non-examination of Majeed is fatal to the bona fides put forward by the landlord.”

We find it difficult to support the above reasoning’s of the Appellate Authority. Rent control petition was filed by the father claiming eviction for his son. Landlord has specifically pleaded that son has no other income of his own. The tenanted premises is required for the purpose of starting a stationery business for his son. We are of the view when once the landlord has stated that his son has no other business and that he is dependent on the landlord for the tenanted premises it is for the tenant to disprove the same by adducing evidence. Appellate Authority has carried away the fact of personal dependency rather than the dependency on the building. Landlord’s son is dependent for the building and not financial dependency.

4. The Apex Court in Gulraj Singh Grewal v. Dr. Harbans Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 68 was dealing with Section 13(3)(a)(i) (a) of E.P.Rent Restriction Act, examined the question whether non-examination of the son as such would be fatal to the petition for eviction. Ape