Invoking the jurisdiction of superintendence under Art.227 of the Constitution, petitioner-tenant seeks to quash an order of eviction concurrently made by the two authorities below, on the ground of bonafide need. First respondent moved an application for eviction under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, on the ground that his son Viswambharan needed the tenanted premises for starting a trade in electrical goods. By Ext.P1, the Rent Controller negatived the plea of bonafide need. The appellate authority by Ext.P2, reversed the order of the Rent Controller, found the need alleged, and granted eviction. Ext. P2 was affirmed in Ext.P3 by the Revisional Authority.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the authorities below misread the expression 'dependent' in S.11(3). According to him, the dependence signified is economic dependence. First respondent's son was financially well off, and he needs no support from first respondent, submits counsel. A learned judge of this court in Muhammad & Ors. v. Sinnamalu Amma (1977 KLT 795) held that the expression 'dependent' in the Section is not limited to a person economically dependent on the landlord