The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the terms 'family' and 'dependent' in the context of eviction under S.11(3) of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, emphasizing the elastic nature of the term 'family' and the broader interpretation of dependency.

1. The first respondent in the revision who is the landlord sought eviction of the petitioners who were in occupation of the first floor of a two storeyed building under the tenant who was the first respondent in the petition for eviction Apart from the allegation that rent was in arrears that question-is no longer relevant-the main ground on which the landlord claimed eviction was under S.11 (3) of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act which provides that:

"A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him."

2. In support of this ground the landlord bad alleged that her husband Pw.1 was running a stationery business and a medical shop in the ground floor, that her son Balagopalan was conducting a typewriting institute in a rented building some distance away in the same town and that if the premises in question which consist of three rooms and a hall are vacated Pw.1 could expand his business and Balagopalan could move his institute into them. This ground was accepted by the authorities below which have agreed in granting the landlord's petition for eviction.

3. The finding that the ground put forward by the landlord is true and bona fide has thus become final and is not liable to challenge in this revision. Mr. Achan for the petitioners however contended that even so the petition must fail as neither Pw.1 nor Balagopalan is a member of the landlord's family and in any event as neither of them is dependent upon the landlord.

4. Taking the first limb of this argument, the expression "family" has not been defined in the Act nor could counsel produce any decision of this Court where it had been considered. However the expression '-family" has been the subject of discussion in several decisions, both Indian and English. In Price v. Gould, 46 TLR. 411, which has been followed in several subsequent cases Wright J said:

"It has been said in a number of equity cases, relating principally to wills or to settlements under powers of appointment, that the word 'family', was a popular, loose, and flexible expression, and not a technical term. It had been laid down that the primary meaning of the word 'family' was children; but that primary meaning was clearly susceptible of wider interpretation, because the cases decided that the exact scope of the word must depend on the context and the other provisions of the will or deed in view of the surrounding circumstances "

The learned judge who was considering the meaning of "family" in S.12 subsection (1)(g) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920 went on to say that the word

"includes brothers and sisters of the deceased living with her (the tenant) at the time of her death. I think that that meaning is required by the ordinary acceptation of the word in this connexion and that the legislature has used the word "family" to introduce a flexible and wide term."

5. In Brock v. Wollams, (1949) 2 K. B. 388, the Court of Appeal held that the defendant Mrs. Wollams who had been adopted in fact but not in legal form at the age of five or six by the tenant and had lived with him till his death, except for an interval of about three years when she resided with her husband, was a member of the tenant's family within the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933. In Standingford v. Probert, (1950) 1 K. B. 377, the Court of Appeal held that the tenant's married sons and their wives were members of his family within the expression "needs of the tenant and hit family" under the same Act. Both these decisions followed Price v. Gould. Another case that deserves notice is Salter v. Lask, (1925) 1 K.B. 584, considered in Brock.v. Wollams, (1949) 2 K.B. 388,393 where the question was whether the husband of a tenant was a member of the tenant's family an