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 specifically plead and prove that they are family members dependent on the landlord and that the need is bona fide. Failure to establish dependency defeats the eviction claim. The District Judge's revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 extends to examining legality, regularity and propriety, allowing correction of an appellate eviction order that overlooks an essential pleading requirement. High Court supervision under Article 227 is limited to grave errors causing injustice and should not disturb a valid revisional order where the rent-control statute intends finality. 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 specifically plead and prove that they are family members dependent on the landlord and that the need is bona fide. Failure to establish dependency defeats the eviction claim. The District Judge's revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 extends to examining legality, regularity and propriety, allowing correction of an appellate eviction order that overlooks an essential pleading requirement. High Court supervision under Article 227 is limited to grave errors causing injustice and should not disturb a valid revisional order where the rent-control statute intends finality. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470200