Radhakrishnan, J.

Original tenant died. Revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the original tenant. Original landlord also died and her legal heirs are the respondents herein.

2. For the disposal of this case we may refer the parties according to their status in the rent control court. Rent control petition was filed by the landlord for eviction under Sections 11(2) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Building was rented out to the original tenant in the year 1972 and monthly rent fixed was Rs 55/-. Tenant defaulted payment of rent from 4.6.1995. Though demand was made rent was kept in arrears by the tenant. Consequently petition was preferred under Section 11 (2) for arrears of rent. Eviction was also sought for under Section 11 (3) of the Act. Landlord's daughter-in-law by name Kususm Menon is an ayurvedic medical practitioner. She is a B.A.M.S. degree holder and has been practicing along with the petitioner. She wanted to start independent practice in a separate consultation center. Daughter-in-law has rely to upon the father-in-law who is the landlord. Father-in-law, the petitioner is conducting an ayurvedic physician who is following traditional system of ayurvedic treatment. On the other hand, daughter-in-law is qualified to conduct ayurvedic clinic under the modern system. Daughter-in-law wanted to have separate practice and consulting center so that without any hindrance she could practice modern system. Tenant resisted the petition stating that this is only a ruse to evict the tenant and there is no necessity to start separate consulting center for the daughter-in-law. Further it is stated by the tenant that daughter-in-law will not come within the definition of "family" dependant on the landlord and consequently eviction petition under Section 11(2) will not lie. Further it was also stated that behind the petition schedule room there are two other rooms available where daughter-in-law can practice ayurveda. Benefit of the provisos was also sought for by the tenant. Rent control court after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the need alleged is bonafide and consequently allowed the petition. However prayer for eviction under Section 11 (2) was dismissed. Appellate Authority confirmed the order against which this revision petition has been preferred.

3. The crucial point to be considered in this case is as to whether daughter-in-law will come within the expression of family defendant of the landlord under Section 11(2) of the Act. Learned single judge of this court in Muhammad and others v. Sinnamalu Amma (1977 K.L.T. 795) held that the expression "family" has to be given a wider meaning. Another learned judge of this court in Balakrishna Menon v. District Judge (1994 (1) KLT 102) held that sister of the husband of the landlady will come within the meaning of the expression "any member of the family of the landlord". Learned single judge in Muhammad's case, (1997 KLT 795) as well as in Balakrishna Menon's case (1994 (1) KLT 102) exhaustively dealt with various decisions on the point. Reference was made to English decisions as well. The cases referred to by the learned judge are Price v. Gould (1930) 46 TLR 411), Broack v. Wollams (1949) 2 KB 388), Standingford v. Probert (1950) I KB 377), Jones v. Whitchill (1950) 1 All.E.R. 71), Govind Dass v. Kuldip Singh (AIR 1971 Delhi 151), Balabhadra v. Premchand (AIR 1953 Nagpur 144) and Rajamma v. Leela (1991 (2) KLT 862). These decisions were also referred to in Balakrishna Menon's case also. We are not reiterating the dictum laid down in those decisions. All the same we may refer to the decision of the apex court in Baldev Sahai Bangia v. R.C.Bhasin (1982) 2 S.C.C. 210). The apex court has examined the scope of the expression "family" within the meaning of Section 14 1(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The apex court referred to the dictionary meaning of the word "family" which appears in Webster's Third