The interpretation of the term "family" and "dependent" under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in the context of a bachelor landlord seeking eviction of a tenant for the accommodation of his brothers, their wives, and children.

( 1 ) THE problem posed in this second appeal is to the interpretation of provise (c) of Sub-sec. (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and finding out whether the claim for eviction made by the appellants was covered by the said proviso.

( 2 ) THE appellants, three brothers, filed an application under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises under his tenancy comprising of two rooms, a W. C. and a kitchen on the ground floor in the building bearing No. 48 in Block C, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. The appellants contention was that they were in occupation of similar accommodation on the first floor but the accommodation occupied by them being insufficient for their needs they required the tenanted premises for occupation by themselves and for members of their family dependent on them. In the eviction petition the three appellants had claimed to be joint owners of the entire premises contending that they constituted a joint Hindu family of which Gobind Dass, the first appellant was the Karta. It was further stated that Gobind Dass was bachelor but the second appellant Dewan Chand was married and besides his wife had five children and the third appellant was married just about the time of the institution of the eviction proceedings.

( 3 ) THE claim for eviction was resisted by the respondent according to whom Gobind Dass was alone the owner of the premises or landlord of the tenant respondent. According to him Gobind Dass was a bachelor and so had sufficient accommodation for his own use on the first floor of the building and the requirements of his relations could not be taken into account. It was further urged that at Dewan Chand was running a shop at Chakarta and had merely sent his wife and childern to stay with his elder brother while Joginder Lal was in Government service and was not dependent upon his elder brother Gobind Dass.

( 4 ) THE learned additional Controller, Delhi, by his order dated May 3, 1966 granted the petition in favour of Gobind Dass alone after holding that he alone was the owner of the premises and landlord but at the same time coming to the conclusion that the three appellants were all members of a joint family and Gobind Dass as the Karta was not merely keeping relatives but that the second and the third appellants and their wives and children were dependent on Gobind Dass for accommodation. Aggrieved by this order the respondent-tenant appealled to the Rent Control Tribunal which by its order dated January 20, 1967 reversed the findings of the learned Additional Controller and dismissed the eviction petition. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no joint Hindu family, that the requirements of the relations of Gobind Dass could not be taken into consideration in ordering eviction of the respondent, that since Gobind Dass was a bachelor he had sufficient accommodation for himself and also observed that neither Dewan Chand nor Joginder Lal, the second and the third appellants were financially dependent upon Gobind Dass and in fact Gobind Dass could not be regarded as having a family as "it may appear that he had entered some religious order". The appellants have now come up to the High Court in second appeal against the order of the learned Tribunal staling that not only is the decision of the Tribunal contrary to proved facts but the findings are based on no evidence and further the interpretation of proviso (e) to Section 14 (1) as given by the Tribunal is wholly incorrect in law.

( 5 ) BEFORE we construe the provision and examine how far it is applicable to the facts of the present case it will be advantageous to read the same which is in the following terms:-

"14. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other Jaw or contract no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour