ORDER

1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel at length.

2. The High Court of Karnataka upheld partial eviction of the tenant- respondent, preserving the truncated tenancy to a room, left with him. There were two grounds for eviction, (i) for personal necessity and (ii) sub-letting or otherwise transferring whole or part of interest in the tenancy. The admitted facts are that the tenant had obtained the lease of the premises in writing, ex facie singularly. The defence put up in the eviction petition was that the need of the landlord was not bona fide and that as per terms of the deed, the lease had been obtained for members of his family, which included his brother. The ground of bona fide requirement was satisfied by the courts below by ordering partial eviction. The ground of sub-letting or otherwise transferring interest in the premises was however repelled. The point thus for consideration is whether the brother of the tenant-respondent was by himself a a tenant allegedly being a member of the family of the respondent.

3. It is not disputed that the tenant under the Kamataka Rent Control Act, 1961 can be a person as also a family. Under Section 3(fl) of the said Act the word "