Antony Dominic, J.

1. The tenant in RCP No. 154/2003 is the revision petitioner. The respondents herein filed the Rent Control Petition on the allegation that pursuant to a lease agreement dated 1/9/99 executed by the respondent, the second petitioner who was the then owner of the building, leased out the building for a period of 11 months and the tenant continued to occupy the same.. Subsequently, by settlement deed No. 1318/2002 of Maradu Sub Registry, the building was transferred to the first petitioner which was also intimated to the tenant. It was alleged that the first petitioner's husband who was working in Acme Manufacturing Company Limited, Mumbai retired from service on 30/4/01 and was residing at their house at Panakkattampilly Road. After the return of the first petitioner and her family from Mumbai, her husband had an idea to start a power laundry and dry cleaning business in the petition schedule premises and on the ground under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, petitioners sought eviction of the revision petitioner tenant. It was also alleged that though the tenant was instructed to pay rent to the second petitioner's mother, who had authorisation to issue receipt acknowledging payment, the tenant had defaulted payment of rent, warranting eviction under S.11(2)(b) of the Act.

2. The Revision petitioner contested the proceedings denying the need urged by the landlord. According to the revision petitioner, the first petitioner and her husband were still working in Mumbai and earning high income. It was also stated that they had no intention to start any business. According to him, he had not defaulted in the payment of rent and the second petitioner was declining to accept whenever payment was tendered. He also stated that the building was not suitable for setting up the business of power laundry and dry cleaning. He also alleged that the landlords had demanded a huge rent of Rs. 1500 per month and a security deposit of Rs. 1 lakh for which he was not amenable and that the bona fide need now urged was only to get him evicted from the building.

3. The Rent Control Court by its order dated 31.5.2004, granted eviction under S.11(2)(b) of the Act and the prayer for eviction under S.11(3) was disallowed. The landlords thereupon filed RCA 102/04 before the Rent control Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal by its judgment dated 31.3.2006 setting aside the rejection of the prayer for eviction under S.11(3) of the Act and allowing the same. The tenant was directed to vacate the premises within two months. It is aggrieved by the order of eviction under S.11(3) granted by the Appellate Authority that the tenant has filed this revision petition.

4. At the time of hearing, the only ground urged by the counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant was that there was no material before the Rent control Court or the Appellate Authority that the husband of the first petitioner for whose occupation eviction was sought, was a member of the family depending upon the first petitioner, the landlord. According to counsel eviction under S.11(3) can be sought by a landlord only for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him. It was contended that unless dependency is pleaded and proved, eviction cannot be claimed and therefore the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, granting eviction under S.11(3) was unsustainable.

5. On the other hand, the counsel for the landlords contend that the parties joined issue before the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the basis that the husband for whose occupation eviction was sought is a dependant of the first petitioner landlord. Although the counsel has fairly conceded that there is no express pleading of dependency in the petition, according to him, in view of the materials placed and the evidence adduced, no prejudice has been caused to the revision petitioner/tenant. He also