The court upheld the need for genuine dependency for eviction under Section 11(3), stating financial dependency is not the only criterion.

ORDER Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2026 Syam Kumar, J.

This rent control revision petition is filed by the tenant challenging the concurrent findings arrived at against him in the proceedings initiated by the respondent/landlord. The rent control petition was filed before the Rent Control Court by the landlord invoking Section 11 (2) (arrears of rent) and (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 . The Rent Control Court, after a detailed examination and appreciation of the evidence produced by both sides, allowed the petition and directed the tenant to provide vacant possession of the premises. In the appeal preferred by the tenant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the findings of the Rent Control Court were affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said findings, the tenant is before us by way of this revision petition.

2. Sri R. Ramadas, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, submits that the courts below failed to take note of the contentions put forth by the tenant, particularly with respect to Section 11 (3) of the Act which mandates that, to seek eviction on the ground of bona fide need, the premises should have been required for a member of the landlord’s family who is dependent on the landlord. It is contended that nothing had been produced by the tenant to satisfy this mandatory requirement. He further submits that the eviction granted under (2) on the ground of arrears of rent is also not sustainable on the facts of the case.

3. Per contra, Sri. Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord submits that there is nothing perverse in the findings arrived at by the courts below and that no interference is called for.

4. We have heard both sides in detail. We note that, regarding the contention based on Section 11 (3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court had considered in detail the statements of the dependent, who was examined on behalf of the landlord who had deposed that he requires the premises for conducting a shop and that he has no other means of income. Sri Ramadas stressed this aspect, submitting that in the course of the examination, the dependent had deposed that he had set apart an amount of around ₹5,00,000/-, which he had saved for the purpose of commencing a business and this, according to the learned counsel, goes to show that the dependent has sufficient means and resources and, therefore, could not fall within the definition of ‘a dependent of the landlord’ as envisaged in (3) of the Act of 1965.

5. We have considered the contentions put forth and note that the courts below, while considering the contentions based on Section 11 (2) of the Act concerning arrears of rent, had taken note of the fact that no evidence has been tendered before the Court to substantiate the reliance on the said provision. We are satisfied that nothing legally tenable had been produced to show that the amounts that are lying in arrears have been cleared by the tenant. As regards the contentions based on (3) of the Act, we note that it is well-settled that, to be considered a dependent of the landlord and to avail the benefit of bona fide need under (3), the person must be genuinely a dependent on the landlord, and that it is not necessary that the dependency should be of the nature of the financial dependency. All that is required to be shown is that there is a genuine need, and that the person claimed as a dependent is a family member having a blood relation with the landlord. The evidence rendered before the Rent Control Court satisfactorily proves the said requirement. As regards the contention that the statement regarding certain amounts being set apart for