ORDER R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. All hopes, howsoever, hopefully expressed, do not necessarily come out truc. The State Legislature while bringing Chapter III-A on the Statute Book of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 1961 had hoped that the cases of genuine requirement now provided to be dealt with by the Rent Controlling Authority, to the exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be decided within six months. In the case at hand, the proceedings for ejectment were initiated on 26-3-84. The case languished for over nine years before the Authority, thanks to the loop-holes of procedural law and tactful devices adopted by recalcitrant tenant. The only solace is to find this civil revision witnessing its burial in less than three months of the date of its filing, thanks to the willingness expressed by the learned counsel for the parties in arguing it out finally at its threshold. 2. The facts of the case at hand if, read with a touch of humanity, shorn of legalities, undoubtedly bear testimony to what their Lordships expressed in Prabhakaran Nair's case ( AIR 1987 SC 2117 )- "Tenants are not in all cases weaker sections. There are those who are both among the landlords as well as the tenants." If two principles arc to be kept in view : that as amongst the several provisions contained in the Rent Control Law it is only the provision entitling the landlord to seek cjectment of the tenant on the ground of genuine requirement of premises which shows its concern for the landlord and has to be interpreted to his benefit, and that while determining a case of genuine requirement the Court has to be guided not by techanicalitics of the law but by the realities of life, then this revision has to be dismissed. In Govind Vs. Dr. Jeetsingh (AIR 1980 SC 365), their Lordships have observed- "Whether in a particular situation the need was reasonable or bona fide must be judged from the objective view point, not merely by assertion or denial of the parties." 3. It is not disputed that the suit accommodation is residential one, occupied by the tenant/petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. The accommodation was owned by Karuna Shankar Trivedi who was landlord too but who was not fortunate to live enough and have the taste of victory in the legal battle. It is not disputed that the suit accommodation is residential one, occupied by the tenant/petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. The accommodation was owned by Karuna Shankar Trivedi who was landlord too but who was not fortunate to live enough and have the taste of victory in the legal battle. He died with his desire and was succeeded by his widow and other legal representatives arrayed as respondents in the revision. Late Karuna Shankar Trivedi was patient of Cancer and hence held to be a 'physically handicapped person' within the meaing of Section 23-J of the Act defining the special category of landlords entitled to sue under Chapter III-A of the Act and have the benefit of expeditious trial by a special Tribunal. He was held to be so by the authority below and also by this High Court in an earlier round of revision to this Court On his death his widow came on record who too was undisputedly a Section 23-J category landlord and hence could successfully prosecute the proceedings before the authority. 4. The need canvassed by Late Karuna Shankar Trivedi, it would be better to extract and reproduce the words in which it was set-out by him in his petition for eviction, since it has been subject matter of serious controversy before this Courl-whether it amounted to pleading a case for ejectment permissible to be tried by reference to Section 23-A of the Act or not. "The accommodation let out to the non-applicant for his residence is required bona fide by the applicant for the residence of himself and his family members specially his two sisters namely Smt. Satya Mishra who is widow and totally dependant on the applicant. She is also having two issues one son and one daughter and both are college going. The second sister Kamla Trivedi aged about 55 years who is blind by birth and totally dependant on the applicant. The sisters of the applicant are living with him in the house of his younger brother, Shri Anand Shankar Trivedi, House No. 1540, Wright Town, Jabalpur. The applicant's family having quite enlarged it has become very essential for him to accommodate two sisters and their children in a separate accommodation. The applicant and his family is living in two rooms only, present accommodation is most insufficient looking to the need of his family. The applicant's family having quite enlarged it has become very essential for him to accommodate two sisters and their children in a separate accommodation. The applicant and his family is living in two rooms only, present accommodation is most insufficient looking to the need of his family. The applicant has no other reasonably suitable accommodation of his own in the city of Jabalpur for the purpose." 5. The written statement disputed the plaint averments and apart from several objections to the maintainability of the petition also submitted that the landlord was possessed of several other accommodations suitable to satisfy his pleaded need and hence was not entitled to any relief. 6. Let it also be slated at the very inception that out of two sisters namely Smt. Satya Mishra, who is a widow, and Ms. Kamla Trivedi, a spinster and also blind, the later died during the pendency of the proceedings. 7. The parties examined witnesses. Before this Court, the jurisdiction where of is confined to hearing of the questions of law alone, the re visional jurisdiction of necessity excluding hearing on questions of fact, the evidence has been read fully by the learned counsel for the parties and this Court with patience heard the evidence being read because of the insistence of the learned counsel and persuaded by the feeling that the cause of justice should not suffer. The family of the plaintiff alongwith his two sisters referred to hereinabove is residing in House No. 1540 which belongs to Anand Shankar, the brother of the plaintiff. The family has two rooms in its possession. The premises occuped by the tenant-petitioner are adjoining premises considered to be safe for the residence of the family members of the landlord because of their proximity with the accommodation presently in possession of the landlord. The landlord late Karuna Shankar Trivedi was highly apprehensive of his life ncaring an end on account of the dreaded disease suffered by him which ultimately took its toll, passing on the dependency of the widow-sister of the landlord on his own widow. 8. It was vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 23A( 1) permits eviction being sought by the landlord if the accommodation let for residential purpose was required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family, etc. 8. It was vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 23A( 1) permits eviction being sought by the landlord if the accommodation let for residential purpose was required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family, etc. 'Member of the family' is defined by the interpretation clause, Section 2(e) of the Act as under: 2. Definitions-In this Act; unless the context otherwise requires- xxx xxx xxx (e) "member of the family" in case of any person means the spouse, son, unmarried daughter, father, grandfather, mother, grandmother, brother, unmarried sister, paternal uncle, paternal uncle's wife or widow, or brother's son or unmarried daughter living jointly with, or any other relation dependent on him. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner developing his argument submitted that Smt. Satya Mishra was a teacher in a school and as she was an earning hand it could not be said that she was dependent on the landlord, for a sister would be a member of the family by virtue of her being any other relation provided that she was 'dependent' on the landlord. 10. This argument of the learned counsel is based on taking too narrow a view of the meaning of the word 'dependent.' 11. The term dependent is not to be found defined in the Act. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines 'dependent' to mean- "one who depends on another in support or otherwise." Per New Webster Dictionary 'dependent' is "one who is supported, esp. financially by another, relying on for support or favour." It is clear that the dependency may be of shades more than one and not necessarily financial merely. It is common knowledge that Indian women though self supporting, are still dependent on the men-folk of the family for their day to day requirements specially for social security and physical safety. Smt. Satya Mishra, in spile of her being a teacher and having her own children, was staying with her brother, the landlord Karuna Shankar Trivedi, because she did not have any other shelter and though not included in the narrow meaning of 'member of the family' but was certainly a relation dependent on him. In the opinion of this Court, the autority did not err in holding Smt. Satya Mishra a 'Membrer of the family' of the landlord in the case. 12. In the opinion of this Court, the autority did not err in holding Smt. Satya Mishra a 'Membrer of the family' of the landlord in the case. 12. In passing, two decisions of this Court may be referred to. In Bhaiyalal Vs. Deomani (1977 MPLJ SN 10) this Court has held that narrow construction of words 'dependent on him" is not to be adopted and daughter and son-in-law dependent on the plaintiffs husband were held to be dependent on the plaintiff-a lady and hence falling within the definition of 'member of the family'. In Ramjilal Vs. Vishwanath Barve (1983 MPWN 234), a brother, though not a member of the family otherwise, was treated so on account of his bei ng dependent on the landlord by reason of his having partially lost his vision and living with the landlord as his dependent. 13. Though at one point of time the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that there are a lew passages in the evidence giving an indication that Smt. Satya Mishra was intending to stay separately from the landlord and as she did not want to live jointly with the landlord she would not remain 'member of family' of the landlord but on the authority of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Purshottam Das Gupta Vs. Bal Ram (1993 (2) MPJR 336) it was pointed out to the learned counsel that the phrase 'living jointly with was limited in its application only to the list of relations immediately preceding the phrase and in so far as 'any other relation' was concerned, dependency on landlord was enough and 'living jointly with' was not a phrase qualifying any other relation to bring him within the meaning of the 'member of the lamily.' The learned counsel did not thereafter pursue his submission on this Count. 14. Vide paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the cross-examination of Karuna Shankar (P.W. 1) it has been brought on record that a few other accommodations were cither lying vacant or had failed vacant. 14. Vide paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the cross-examination of Karuna Shankar (P.W. 1) it has been brought on record that a few other accommodations were cither lying vacant or had failed vacant. Without burdening this judgment with a detailed discussion of evidence in that regard, suffice it to observe generally that those accommodations were mostly the accommodations requisitioned by the Collector for allotment to government servants or servants of lacal authorities or corporations, etc under Section 39 and 40 of the Act and hence were not available to the landlord unless released from, control by the Collector. In any case they were all such accommodations as were situated at a distance or away from the accommodation presently in possession of the landlord and hence they would not satisfy the requirement of an alternate accommodation suitable in all respects as the suit accommodation so as the negate the case of the landlord. This Court cannot refuse to be alive to this reality of life that late Karuna Shankar had desired the widow-sister to live in close proximity so as to be able to extend continued care to her and now with Karuna Shankar having expired his window herself stands in need of care and the two windows cannot be insisted on being left to occupy the premises situated at a distance from the present residence of the landlord where forunately the assistance and proximity of Anand Shankar the real brother of the late landlord, is still 'available. 15. This Court is therefore unhesitatingly of the opinion that the landlord has fully made out a case of genuine requirement of the suit accommodation for residence of the landlord and his widowed sister's family dependent on him to satisfy which requirement the landlord is not possessed of any other reasonably suitable alternate accommodation. 16. It is next submitted that the authority below acted unreasonably in striking out the defence of the tenant/petitioner consequent to which he lost the opportunity of adducing evidence on the facts introduced by amendment in his written statement. This contention has not appealed to this Court for two reasons. Firstly, the defence was struck off because the tenant/petitioner failed to satisfy the authority of his having complied with the provisions contained in Section 13 of the Act. This contention has not appealed to this Court for two reasons. Firstly, the defence was struck off because the tenant/petitioner failed to satisfy the authority of his having complied with the provisions contained in Section 13 of the Act. When a dispute arises whether the tenant has made complete and regular deposits of the rent falling in arresrs month by month, it is for him to bring material on record and satisfy the Court, of this obligation having been complied with because the facts arc in his knowledge and material in his possession. Secondly, the amendment was allowed at a stage when the trial was practically over and facts introduced by the amendment would not have made any material difference with determining the need of the landlord even if they would have been allowed to be substantiated by evidence, for the reasons already staled hereinabove This Court is not inclined in the least to grant a fresh lease of life to this litigation which has already enjoyed a dragon's life by remanding the case for retrial to satisfy the technical ends of justice as this Court convinced to find and hold. 17. For all the foregoing reasons, the revision is held liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. The order of the Authority, directing ejectment of the petitioner, is confirmed. The costs in this revision are left to be borne by the parties as incurred. 18. However, to save the petitioner from the hardship of sudden ejectment, specially in view of the length of the period for which the tenant has already enjoyed residence in the suit premises, it is directed that the order of eviction shall not be available for execution for a period of four months from today subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking on affidavit cither before this Court or before the Authority below within a period of one month from today in the following terms. (1) That the petitioner shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession over the accommodation in his occupation to the respondent on or before 25-5-1994. (2) That on or before 25-2-1994, he shall deposit for payment to the respondent the entire money part of the decree under appeal i ncludi ng arrears of rent calculated upto date. (1) That the petitioner shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession over the accommodation in his occupation to the respondent on or before 25-5-1994. (2) That on or before 25-2-1994, he shall deposit for payment to the respondent the entire money part of the decree under appeal i ncludi ng arrears of rent calculated upto date. (3) That with effect from 1 -2-1994 on or before the expiry of fifteenth day of every month, he shall deposit the rent for that month for payment to the landlord. (4) On failure to file the affidavit or on failure to comply with any of the terms abovesaid, the decree of ejectment shall be available for execution forthwith.