https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470200 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. en-us Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:51:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470200 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470200