1. The defendant - tenant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code aggrieved by the eviction decree passed by the first appellate court of learned Additional District Judge, Sumerpur in Appeal No. 8/2010 - Prakashmal v. LRs of Late Smt. Rehmat wife of Shri Kasam Ji, who is now represented after her death by Mohd. Salim s/o Shri Kasam Ji - her son.

2. The learned trial court had decreed the suit No. 42/1997 filed by the plaintiff - landlord Smt. Rehmat in respect of the suit premises, a shop situated at Sumerpur, which was initially given on rent to the defendant - tenant Prakashmal @ Rs. 115/- per month and the eviction suit was filed, inter alia, on the ground of bonafide need of landlady's grand son Mohd. Raffique for opening an electronic equipment repair shop.

3. The first appeal filed by the defendant - tenant Prakashmal also came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 20.12.2011 and thus the concurrent decrees of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlady's grand son is sought to be challenged in the present appeal of defendant - tenant.

4. By consent of both the learned counsels, the appeal is being disposed of finally at admission stage.The following substantial question of law is framed for consideration by this Court :

"Whether an eviction decree can be granted to the landlord/landlady, who is governed by Muslim Law, for the bonafide need of her grand-son and whether such grand-son is a member of "family" as stipulated in Section 13(1)(h) of the Rent Control Act, 1950 ?"

5. Learned counsel for the appellant - defendant (tenant), Mr. J.R. Patel urged that both the courts below have wrongly held that grand-son Mohd. Raffique was the member of the "family" of Mst. Rehmat - the landlady, as in the presence of his father Lal Mohd., the grand-son could not succeed to the property of the plaintiff - Mst. Rehmat under Muslim Law and after her death, during the pendency of the present appeal, since another son Mohd. Salim uncle of Mohd. Raffique for whose need, the suit shop is sought to be vacated, was brought on record on the basis of a Will purportedly executed by Mst. Rehmat in his favour, certainly the said Mohd. Raffique, could not fall within the ambit and scope of the term "family" of said Mohd. Salim, his uncle, since own real father Lal Mohd. Was alive under Section 13(1)(h) of the Act of 1950 and, therefore, no decree of eviction could be passed at the instance of landlord Mohd. Salim for the purported bonafide need of his nephew Mohd. Raffique. While submitting that the word "family", which is not defined in the Rent Control Act, 1950, need not be construed narrowly and it is not necessary that the grand-son has to be dependent on the landlady to become a member of her "family", learned counsel for the appellant - tenant, Mr. J.R. Patel urged that the landlady in the present case, never pleaded and proved that the said grand-son was the member of her "family" and for his bonafide need, she needed the suit shop in question. He relied upon various case laws in support of his contentions with regard to the term "family", which will be discussed hereinafter.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff - landlady, strongly refuted the contentions of the learned counsel for the defendant - tenant and urged that the word "family" has been construed to be a term of wide import and irrespective of right to succeed to the property of the grant-mother or not, the grand-son Mohd. Raffique being a blood relation, could not be denied the status of being a family member of Mst. Rehmat and even though he was living separately from his father namely Lal Mohd. and his grand mother Mst. Rehmat was living with him, it does not mean that the grand-mother could not claim the eviction on the ground of bonafide need for grand-son to set up his own business in the suit shop and he urged that both the courts below have rightly decr