NARAYANA PILLAI Vs. PONNAPPAN ACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Who is a dependent within the meaning of S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act Is it only the person who looks to another for financial support for his living or is the term wide enough to take in persons closely related to the landlord and who though not financially dependent on the other for his living looks up to the other for general support This question arises in the context of a petition for eviction under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act by the landlord. The apparent purpose of seeking eviction in this case is to accommodate the son in such premises so that the son may carry on his business thereon. The son is aged 45, seems to have been employed in the military and is now retired. He has monetary resources to the extent of a sum of Rs. 18,000/- obtained by him from the military department for his service. No doubt he may not be depending upon his father for his maintenance Even so, convenience permitting, he may choose to live with the father in the father's house. That would naturally be what a son may do, even it he is financially not dependent on his father, if the son has no other place to live in and the place where the father lives is spacious enough to accommodate him. This would be the case with residential accommodation. If the father has non residential buildings and the son is interested in starting his own business even though the son may not be financially dependent on his father it would be natural for the father to provide the son with a non residential building at his disposal for the son's business. In such a situation the son could be said to be dependent on the father in the matter of the need for the non residential building possessed by the father. Though in strict legal parlance dependence may mean looking up for support or maintenance, in the context in which that term appears in S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act it connotes a wider concept and covers a larger field. It takes in a person who is not financially dependent upon the landlord but who would in the normal course look up to the landlord to provide him with the facility of a building possessed by the landlord. Whether the landlord would do so or not to such a dependent would depend on various facts and circumstances including the financial situation in which the landlord is placed, the degree of closeness or intimacy with the dependent who seeks the provision of such building and other similar matters of relevance.

(2.) The learned revisional Judge whose order is under challenge in this revision petition seems to have approached the question from an entirely different angle. The learned revisional Judge confirming the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority seems to think that since the son is in possession of a sum of Rs. 18,000/- he cannot be said to be a dependent, a view which is contrary to what I have said here, a view contrary to what expressed earlier by this court in Anthony Kochuvariathu v. Chakkalinga Nadar reported in 1971 KLT 119 and in Muhammad & others v. Sinnamalu Amma reported in 1977 KLT 795 . I reiterate the view expressed in the earlier decisions. In the circumstances the order challenged in this revision calls for reopening. That would mean that the landlord would be entitled to eviction. In this view I need not consider the correctness of another ground considered by the Revisional Authority, namely, whether a portion of the building had been sublet without the consent of the landlord. The tenant is given a period of 4 months from this date to surrender possession of the building to the landlord. No costs.