PRATHAPAN Vs. P R RAMA WARRIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAN there be a degree of comparison between mother and brother while claiming dependency of a member of the family under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

(2.) LANDLORD 's elder brother contended that his younger brother is dependent on him so far as the tenanted premises is concerned to start a business in electrical equipments, while the tenant took up the stand that even if younger brother is a dependent he could be dependent only on the mother and not with the elder brother since mother is also having a building of her own. Rent Control Court took the view that since younger brother and the landlord are residing with the mother, it should be taken that younger brother is dependent on the mother and not on the brother. Further it was held that brother of the petitioner cannot be considered as dependent on the landlord who is elder brother and that husband, wife and children can only be considered as member of the family unless it is a joint family. Since family of the landlord is not a joint family, Rent Control Court took the view that younger brother is not dependent on the elder brother. The Rent Control Appellate Authority however took the view that younger brother is dependent on the elder brother and held that the need is bona fide.

(3.) WE find it difficult to agree with the reasoning of the Rent Control Court. So far as this case is concerned, it has come out in evidence that one of the brothers is married. He is residing along with the mother in the family. Mother will have to look after other sons also. So far as this case is concerned, we are inclined to take the view that younger brother is dependent on the elder brother, who is elder member of the family. Contention was raised by the counsel that there is no sufficient pleading to show that younger brother is dependent on the elder brother. We have perused the objection filed by the tenant and the evidence adduced in this case which would show even though there was no meticulous pleading regarding the dependency no prejudice has been caused to the tenant, since he was aware of the case which he has to defend.