Dependency of family members must be pleaded and proved before eviction can be sought for their occupation.

Eviction for occupation by a married daughter and son-in-law under Section 11(3) requires the landlord to establish that they are family members, dependent on the landlord, and genuinely require the premises. The notes state that failure to specifically plead and prove dependency defeats the eviction claim. They further explain that the District Judge's revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 extends to examining legality, regularity and propriety, allowing correction of an appellate order overlooking an essential statutory requirement. Supervisory intervention under Article 227 is described as limited to grave error causing injustice, particularly where the rent-control statute intends finality of its orders.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether eviction for the occupation of a married daughter and son-in-law under Section 11(3) requires pleading and proof of their dependency on the landlady; (ii) Whether the District Judge's revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 extends to correcting legal infirmity in an appellate eviction order; (iii) Whether the High Court could interfere under Article 227 with the revisional order.

Issue (i): Whether eviction for the occupation of a married daughter and son-in-law under Section 11(3) requires pleading and proof of their dependency on the landlady.

Analysis: Section 11(3) permits eviction for a family member's occupation only where the landlord establishes that the person is a family member, is dependent on the landlord, and has a bona fide need for the premises. Even assuming that the married daughter and son-in-law were family members, the eviction petition contained no pleading of their dependency on the landlady. Absence of pleading and substantiation of any essential ingredient defeats the claim.

Conclusion: The landlady was not entitled to eviction under Section 11(3); this issue is in favour of the tenant.

Issue (ii): Whether the District Judge's revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 extends to correcting legal infirmity in an appellate eviction order.

Analysis: Section 20 authorises examination of the legality, regularity and propriety of orders passed under the Act. This revisional power is not confined to jurisdictional error and is wider than the revision contemplated by Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellate order allowing eviction despite the missing essential pleading suffered from legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The District Judge validly set aside the appellate eviction order in revision; this issue is in favour of the tenant.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court could interfere under Article 227 with the revisional order.

Analysis: The special rent-control enactment does not provide a further appeal or revision to the High Court, reflecting an intention that orders under the Act attain finality. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is confined to cases involving grave error causing injustice, which was not established where the revisional order correctly remedied the appellate order's legal defect.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference with the revisional order was unwarranted; this issue is in favour of the tenant.

Final Conclusion: The statutory requirements for eviction were not met, and the revisional order refusing eviction was correctly restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where eviction is sought for a family member under Section 11(3), dependency of that member on the landlord must be specifically pleaded and proved; the District Judge may in revision correct an appellate order that overlooks this essential requirement.

---