The tenants filed a revision petition challenging the Rent Control Appellate Authority's judgment allowing eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for the landlord's bona fide need to occupy the premises for a stationery business.[15000246930001] The original landlord, who had returned from employment abroad due to health issues and lacked income, passed away during Rent Controller proceedings; legal representatives were impleaded, and the petition was amended to affirm the continuing need, now to be managed by the son-in-law of one legal representative for family livelihood.[15000246930001][15000246930002] The tenants countered that the need was not genuine, they depended on the business income, no suitable alternatives existed locally, and the landlord's death extinguished the need, requiring a fresh petition.[15000246930002] Evidence included PW1 (landlord's wife) and PW2 (son-in-law) affirming the need, with documents marked.[15000246930003] Courts below found the need bona fide and continuing post-death, with no suitable alternatives for the tenant (a pensioner whose son ran the business yielding minimal net income after expenses, and who made no sincere search for alternatives).[15000246930004][15000246930009][15000246930010][15000246930011] The revision court held that under Section 11(3), a landlord may seek eviction for own occupation or that of dependent family members; bona fide need survives the landlord's death before eviction order if it continues for such family members, allowing legal representatives to proceed via amendments, subject to case-specific facts. (!) [15000246930005][15000246930006][15000246930007] "Dependent family member" depends on relationships and circumstances, pragmatically assessed; here, evidence supported PW2's role.[15000246930008][15000246930009] The landlord had no other vacant suitable premises, and the tenant failed to prove hardship under the second proviso (e.g., high deposits insufficient).[15000246930010][15000246930011] No illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in lower courts' concurrent findings under Section 20; revision dismissed.[15000246930012] (!)