The concept of dependency includes non-financial needs for eviction purposes under Section 11(3) of the Act.

O R D E R

Sophy Thomas, J.

The tenant is in revision, challenging the concurrent orders of eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The landlord filed RCP No.12 of 2015 before the Rent Control Court, Kuthuparamba, for evicting the tenant under Section 11 (3) of the Act, since she was in bonafide need of the tenanted premises for her daughter-in-law to start a ladies tailoring cum fancy shop. According to the landlord, her daughter-in-law was dependant on her for the building, and she had no other building in her possession for the purpose of the proposed shop. The tenant opposed that petition, seeking the benefit of the second proviso to (3) of the Act.

According to him, he is mainly depending on the income derived from the business in the schedule building for his livelihood and no other suitable buildings are available in that locality to shift his business.

3. PW1 was examined and Ext.A1 was marked from the side of the landlord. RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B9 were marked from the side of the tenant. Ext.X1 was marked as witness exhibit.

4. On analysing the facts and evidence, the Rent Control Court found that, there was no specific pleading as to the dependency of daughter-in-law for the building, and so, the RCP was dismissed. The landlord preferred RCA No.65 of 2017, and the appellate court found that the tenant was not entitled to get the benefit of the provisos under Section 11 (3) of the Act. Further the appellate court allowed the amendment application filed by the landlord, for incorporating necessary pleadings with respect to the dependency of the daughter-in-law for the building. Setting aside the order of the Rent Control Court, the appellate court remanded the case, to decide as to the issue of dependency of the daughter-in-law of the landlord, for the petition schedule building.

5. After remand, the Rent Control Court conducted further examination of PW1 and RW1, and additional documents Exts.A2 and A3 were marked. After hearing the rival contentions and on evaluating the evidence available, the Rent Control Court found that, PW1-the daughter-in-law of the landlord, was a dependent on her, for the petition schedule building, and so eviction was ordered under Section 11 (3) of the Act. The tenant took the matter in appeal by filing RCA No.73 of 2020, and the appellate court also upheld the order of eviction under (3) of the Act. Hence, the tenant is before us, invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 20 of the Act.

6. We are called upon to find out whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned judgment, warranting interference.

7. The trial court as well as the appellate court were concurrent in their finding that the tenant was not entitled to get the benefit of the provisos to Section 11 (3) of the Act. Both courts found that PW1-the daughter-in-law of the landlord, was depending on her, for the petition schedule building, for starting a tailoring cum fancy shop. The tenant has no case that, PW1 was not the daughter-in-law of the landlord. According to the tenant, the landlord did not enter the box to prove the bonafide need and that may turn fatal to her case. But, PW1-the daughter-in-law herself entered the box, and gave evidence to the effect that, she is intending to start a tailoring cum fancy shop in the petition schedule room and she has no other room to start her business, for which she is depending on her mother-in law.

8. It has come out in evidence that, PW1, her husband and children are staying along with the landlord, and, according to her, they have no income other than the income of her husband, for their livelihood. So, she is intending to start a business of her own, to support her family. No evidence challenging the bonafides of PW1, is brought out from the side of the tenant.

9. The dependency claimed by the daughter-in-law need not be