Dependency can be partial also.

Ratnam, J.

1. The tenant is the petitioner in this Civil Revision petition, which is directed against the order of the appellate authority, Pondicherry, evicting the petitioner from the premises in his occupation, on an application filed by the respondents herein under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969(Act 5 of 1969)(hereinafter referred tc as the Act), as amended by the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Amendment) Act, 1980, (Act 8 of 1980). The 1st respondent herein is the owner of the building and the 2nd respondent is his son. According to the case of the respondents, in 1980 the property bearing door No. 61 Clave Subbaraya Chetty Street, Pondicherry, was let out to the petitioner for residential purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 200 which was subsequently raised to Rs. 250. In or about 1985, the petitioner is stated to have used the premises for non-residential purposes and on protests beings raised by the respondents, the petitioner promised to vacate the premises, but he did not do so. With reference to the different user of the premises let out to the petitioner, the respondents reserved their right to proceed against the petitioner for eviction to that ground. The respondents further stated that the premises in the occupation of the petitioner is required for occupation by the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent was living in the house of the wife of the 1st respondent and misunderstandings has arisen between the wives of the 1st and the 2nd respondent making it impossible for the 2nd respondent and his wife to live peacefully with the wife of the 1st respondent and under those circumstances, in order to restore harmony in the family and to enable the 2nd respondent to lead a peaceful life in a separate residence, the respondents required the accommodation under the occupation of the petitioner. Stating that neither the 1st respondent nor even the 2nd respondent is in occupation of any residential house of their own in Pondicherry, they filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 57 of 1987 before the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Pondicherry, proving for an order of eviction against the petitioner. .

2. In the counter filed by the petitioner, while denying that the premises let out to him has been put to a different user, he disputed the quarrels between the wives of the 1st and the 2nd respondents and the arising of the misunderstandings and stated that the 2nd respondent was in management of the entire properties and, therefore the wife of the 1st respondent very much needed the care and custody of the family of the 2nd respondent, and it was on account of this, the upper portion of the premises had been let out to a third party. The claim of the 2nd respondent that he had no other house of his own was denied and the demand by the respondents for owner's occupation was characterised as contrary of law. The petitioner also put forth the plea that the respondents desired to evict the petitioner with a view to lease it out for a higher rent. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the application for eviction.

3. Before the Rent Controller, on behalf of the respondents, Exs. P.1 to P.8 were marked and the 2nd respondents and another gave evidence as P.Ws 1. and 2 while, the petitioner examined himself - as R.W.1, on a consideration of the evidence, the rent controller found that the 2nd respondent, a Chartered Accountant by profession, is earning independently, and, he cannot be brought within the scope of the expression 'dependent children' within the meaning of the Act, and, therefore, the 1st respondent cannot seek an order of eviction against the petitioner on the ground that the premises is required for the occupation of the 2nd respondent. In that view, the application for eviction was dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the respondents preferred an appeal in MA.No.38 of 1988 before the appellate authority (Principal District Judge), Pondicherry. The appel