Sankaranarayanan, J. 1. The landlady is the revision petitioner. She filed R. C.P. No. 312/91 before the Rent Control Court, Kannur seeking eviction of the respondent from the petition scheduled premises bearing door No. 3/151 in the Pallikunnu Panchayat, on grounds of arrears of rent and for purposes of own occupation under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act').
2. The landlady alleged that the building had been taken on rent by the tenant in 1975 on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- and the rent had been subsequently enhanced to Rs. 75/- per month and had been paid at that rate for the period inclusive of October, 1990. She alleged that the rent for the subsequent period was in arrear. She also stated that the building was required for the residence of her daughter Fazida, her husband and children after necessary modification along with the adjoining portion which was the subject matter of R.C.P. No. 313/91, filed against the tenant of that portion.
3. The respondent/tenant resisted the petition. The two petitions were jointly tried. The Rent Controller found that the arrears had been discharged and there was no scope for an order for eviction under Section 11 (2) (b) of the Act. The Rent Controller accepted the landlady's case that she required the building bona fide for purposes of occupation by her daughter and granted an order for eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act. The prayer for eviction of the tenant from the adjoining portion in R.C.P. No. 313/91 was also granted.
4. The respondent/tenant took the matter in appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and District Judge, Thalassery. The appellate authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the order, the landlady has come up in revision.
5. As already noted, the landlady has sought eviction on the ground that her married daughter Fazida required the building for her residential purposes. While considering the argument advanced on either side, the learned appellate Judge has observed as follows : "It is crucial that the landlady must establish that her daughter Fazida was dependent on her for accommodation. Dependency need not be financial. It is enough if it is shown by the landlady that the daughter would look up to the landlady for such accommodation. Even if she is married and is under the care and protection of her husband, the landlady will be entitled to claim eviction for the bona fide need of her daughter it is shown that such daughter could reasonably look up to her mother for accommodation. It is trite law that dependency need not be financial, it is enough if in the given circumstances it would seasonable to expect the daughter to look up to her mother for accommodation". The learned appellate Judge noticed the legal position that the law of pleadings in all its rigour is not applicable to proceedings before the statutory tribunals constituted under welfare legislation, but observed that the rulers of natural justice were basic to the fabric of the system of administration of justice and it was essential that a party must plead the necessary factual detailson which the relief is to be founded. After thus slating the legal position correctly, the learned appellate Judge proceeded to "cautiously scan" the petition and concluded that there was no whisper of a contention that the daughter of the landlady was dependent on her for accommodation. The learned Judge observed that after marriage, it was normal for a woman to look up to her husband for accommodation and other necessities of life and if a daughter was relying on her mother for accommodation, there must be necessary pleadings and evidence on that aspect. The learned Judge concluded that the landlady's case must fail for want of necessary pleadings regarding the dependency of her daughter on her for accommodation.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the respondent and also perused the records and the evidence in the case.
7. In the petition, the landlady has stated as follows :
(Vermicular matter omitted -- Ed.) which can he translated thus: The petition scheduled building and the adjoining portion are to be combined together and necessary modifications effected for conversion as a residence for the petitioner's daughter Fazida, her husband and children for their separate residence and such an unavoidable own purpose has arisen for the landlady. Again, it is stated that getting vacant possession of the building has become essential.
8. As observed in Madhavan v. Leelamma (1991) 2 Ker LT 32 : (AIR 1992 Kerala 245) noticing the earlier decision in Narayani v. District Judge (1991) 1 Ker LT 646 "meticulous analysis of pleadings should not be adopted, which will lead to failure of justice. It does not mean that proper pleadings are not necessary in proceedings under the Act. If taking the entire circumstances emerged in the case, if the Court feels that no prejudice has been caused to the tenant on account of the pleadings of the petitioner, it is not proper to deny the relief on the ground that there is no pleading".
9. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision in Balakrishna Menon v. District Judge (1994) I Kbr LT 102 ; (AIR 1994 Kerala 158) and contended that dependency must be pleaded and proved. That was a case where eviction was sought for the sister-in-law of the landlady. The learned Judge accepted the contention that she could also be treated as a member of the family, but there must be pleadings and proof that she was a dependent, on the landlady and not on her husband. It is clearly distinguishable from this case where eviction is sought for the daughter of the landlady herself.
10. In this case, the landlady has clearly stated the purpose for which she was seeking eviction. It was for the occupation of the building by her daughter along with her husband and children. It is true that she had not staled in so many words that the daughter was dependent on her for accommodation. But such a plea is clear from the averments. On behalf of the landlady, her husband I was examined as a witness. He stated that himself I and the landlady had 7 children. His married daughter was also staying with them. This was admitted by the tenant also when examined as RW. 1 The landlady had only expressed a desire to set up a separate residence for her married daughter who was already residing with her. The learned District Judge has observed that it was for the daughter's husband to provide accommodation for her and there is no pleading that such accommodation is not available. But the tenant had also no case that the daughter's husband had other buildings or properties for their residential purposes. There was no such suggestion in the cross-examination of PW.1. There was only a vague averment in the counter statement that the landlady had other properties. But nothing specific was pointed out either in the counter statement or at the time of evidence. The tenant had a contention that the landlady had a palatial house with all amenities and the petition scheduled building was comparatively small and it will be inconvenient for the daughter to occupy the building. But the landlady wanted the petition scheduled portion and the adjoining premises to be combined and renovated for purposes of occupation by her daughter. The Commissioner's report and sketch, Exts. C1 and C2, show that there will be sufficient space in the building if the two portions are combined together. There was nothing to doubt the bona fides of the petitioner when she put forward the claim for eviction for purposes of occupation by her daughter. The Rent Controller had, on a proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, granted the prayer. The appellate authority was not justified in interfering with the conclusions of the Rent Controller on the ground that the pleadings were deficient. The conclusions of the learned appellate authority call for interference in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court under'Seclion 20 of the Act.
For the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed. The order of the appellate authority is set aside and the order for eviction granted by the Rent Controller under Section 11(3) of the Act is restored. The respondent/ tenant is granted 3 months' time to vacate the building. Parties to bear their costs throughout.