1. - Instant writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1.11.2011 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Civil Appeal (Rent Control) No. 133/2007 whereby the Appellate Rent Tribunal affirmed the judgment and certificate of eviction passed by the Rent Tribunal & Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bhilwara dated 25.9.2007 in Case No. 293/2004, by which, certificate for eviction from the premises in question was passed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner took shop No. 38 situated in Azad Market, Bhilwara on rent form the respondent on 1.8.1979 at the rate of Rs. 180/- per month. The respondent landlord filed petition under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara seeking eviction from the property in question on the ground of material alteration and damage of the rented premises, nuisance and bona fide necessity for his daughter-in-law. After filing reply by the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal, the Rent Tribunal rendered judgment on 25.9.2007 and issued certificate of eviction in favour of the landlord respondent for eviction on' the ground that requirement of rented premises for the purpose of starting a coaching center-cum-computer class for daughter-in-law of the landlord is bona fide necessity and further held that the petitioner tenant is in possession of alternative place of business.

3. Against the judgment dated 25.9.2007, the petitioner tenant preferred appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal but the Appellate Rent Tribunal dismissed the said appeal vide its judgment dated 1.11.2011 even if taking clear note of inconsistency in the testimony of respondent landlord and his daughter-in-law with respect to rented premises.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the validity of both the judgments impugned submits that the Rent Tribunal has failed to appreciate the crucial evidentiary aspect, as also, failed to ascertain the contours of Section 9(1) of the Act of 2001. With regard to the ground of bona fide necessity, it is submitted that this plea can be taken by the landlord for the use or occupation of himself or his family or for the use or occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts below have failed to examine the aforesaid question in the light of judicial pronouncements.

5. It is further submitted that as per Section 9 of the Act of 2001, eviction can be ordered on the ground of use or occupation of the premises by the landlord or the family which is to be taken as one unit and not individuals in isolation. The intention of the legislature is clear that premises is to be used or occupied by any individual belonging to the family of the landlord. In this case, the requirement of premises by the respondent landlord is for his daughter-in-law which does not fall under Section 9(1) of the Act. Under the legal concept of "the use or occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises is held" the respondent landlord is not entitled in law or upon facts to take the plea of bona fide necessity for his daughter-in-law because she has separate identity with her husband, therefore, the appellate Rent Tribunal has failed to appreciate the principle "arms length operation" and "separate identity".

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that as per Section 9(1) of the Act, the eviction can be ordered if the premises is required reasonably and bona fide by the landlord for use and occupation of himself and family or for whose benefit the premises is held. But, here, in this case, the daughter-in-law cannot be included in the definition of "family" of the landlord, therefore, the judgment impugned and certificate passed by the Rent Tribunal is totally illegal.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards following definitions of the word "family":

"Oxford

(i) a group consist