Judgment :- John Mathew, J. The respondents before the Rent Control Court are the revision petitioners. The respondents herein who are the landlord and his brother, who is the Power-of-Attorney holder of the landlord, filed :the rent control petition for eviction of the tenants under Ss.11(2) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The: petition schedule building originally belonged to the landlord's brother, Emmanual, and his wife, Thresia, The building was leased out by the original owners through their power-of-attorney to the tenants on a monthly rent of Rs.55/- on 1-5-1956 which was later enhanced to Rs. 75/- per month. Emmanual and his wife Thresia gifted the petition schedule building and the property to the present landlord on 16-2-1977. The assignment was duly intimated to the tenants. Subsequently after issuing a notice dated 11-9-1978 terminating the tenancy, the petition for eviction was. filed. According to the landlord he has no other building. He intends to stay in Trivandrum and hence he bona fide requires the building for his residence along with his' brother (the 2nd petitioner before the Rent Control Court) who is now residing in a rented building in Trivandrum since he also has no building of his own. It was further alleged that he is a dependant of the landlord. 3. The tenants (revision petitioners herein) filed objections. It was contended that the P1 ft deed stated to have been executed on 16-2-1977 did not take effect and that it was executed to defeat the rights of the tenants. The need set up by the landlord was also denied. 4. The landlord produced Exts. Al to A4 series. The landlord was examined as P.W. 1. The tenants produced Exts. BI to B4. The 1st respondent (1st revision petitioner herein) was examined as CPW.1 and the 2nd petitioner before the Rent Control Court was examined as CPW.2 The Rent Control Court after examining the evidence found that the need set up by the landlord was not bona fide. Accordingly the petition was dismissed. However, in appeal, the appellate authority reversed the finding and ordered eviction. 5. Accordingly the petition was dismissed. However, in appeal, the appellate authority reversed the finding and ordered eviction. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners raised a preliminary contention that the Additional District Judge Trivandrum had no jurisdiction to decide the rent Control appeal since under the notification under S.18 of the act-only District Judges are conferred with the powers of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Such a contention was overruled by this Court in P.K. Sreenivasa Kammath v. M/s. Ananda Kammath & Sons, C.R.P. No. 1115 of 991. We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning of that order. Accordingly this contention is rejected. 6. The point for consideration is whether the tenants are liable to be evicted mulct'S.11(3) of the Act. 7. Learned counsel for the tenants-revision petitioners strongly contended that the landlord's brother cannot be said to be a dependant of the landlord and thus the need of the landlord's brother cannot be relied on in order to evict the tenants. It may be noticed that the need set up in the petition as well as in the evidence was primarily the need of the landlord. The landlord has no other building any where for his residence. He intends to stay in the petition schedule building. As P.W.1 the landlord gave evidence in this regard. No doubt it was also contended that the landlord's brother who is a dependant on the landlord and who has no building of his own, intends to stay in the building along with the landlord. In case the landlord was able to substantiate any of these grounds he was entitled to get eviction of the building. Regarding the first ground namely the need of the landlord there is evidence to the effect that the landlord who is a Catholic Priest has no other building of his own. He is aged and he desires to retire and to reside in the petition schedule building. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that as a Catholic Priest the landlord cannot own any property and in his old age he has to live in the common residence provided by the Church for retired Priests. No provision of civil law or Canon Law under which Catholic Priests are prohibited from owning properties, was brought to our notice. There is no obligation on the part of retired Catholic Priests to reside in common residences provided by the Church. No provision of civil law or Canon Law under which Catholic Priests are prohibited from owning properties, was brought to our notice. There is no obligation on the part of retired Catholic Priests to reside in common residences provided by the Church. In any case residence in such common ladies cannot be termed as a matter of faith. The Priests may or may not choose to avail of any such facility which may be provided by the Church. Therefore the need set up by the landlord to retire and to live in the petition schedule building cannot be termed as a irrational need or a ground set up merely for evicting the tenants. 8. Added to this the landlord also contended that his brother needs the building for his residence along with the landlord. -The dependency need not be financial dependency but dependency for the purpose of residence. It is proved that the landlord's brother has no building of his own. So the finding of the appellate authority that he is a dependent on the landlord as far as the residential house is concerned is only to be confirmed. (See Muhammed v. Sinnamalu Amma, 1977 KLT 795 and Kumaran v. KunjunniPHlai, 1991 (1) KLT 148). Under the circumstances we hold that there is no illegality or impropriety in the judgment of the appellate authority justifying interference under S.20 of the Act. 9. However, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the revision petitioners were living in the building for a considerably long period and in case his contentions are not accepted, this Court may grant atleast six months time to vacate the premises. Under the circumstances of this case we are inclined to allow six months time to the revision petitioners to vacate the premises on the conditions stipulated below: The judgment of the Appellate Authority is accordingly confirmed. However, the revision petitioners are given six months time to vacate the premises on condition that they file affidavits in the Rent Control Court/ Execution Court within one month from this date unconditionally undertaking to vacate the premises within six months. They should also pay arrears of rent, if any, along with the affidavit and continue to pay the monthly rent regularly during the period given to them for vacating the premises. They should also pay arrears of rent, if any, along with the affidavit and continue to pay the monthly rent regularly during the period given to them for vacating the premises. In case any of these conditions are not complied with, the landlord will be free to evict the revision petitioners in accordance with the order of the Appellate Authority. C.R.P. dismissed with the above directions.