SHINGHAL, J.—This is a tenants appeal from the Judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge No. 1 Jaipur City, dated December 2, 1963, confirming the trial Courts decree for his eviction from a shop in Jaipur City. The grievance of the appellant is that both the courts below have taken the view that Radhey Shyam, the son of the Landlords brother, was a member of the landlords "family" within the meaning of clause (h)(i) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 13 of the Rajas-than Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereafter referred to as the Act.

2. The shop in question belongs to landlord Damodardass who purchased it on January 33, 1961 and, soon after, gave a notice (Ex. 4) to the tenant on February 1, 1961, terminating his tenancy on the ground that the shop was required by the landlord for the purpose of the business of his nephew. It was not stated in the notice that Radhey Shyam was a member of the landlords family, but such a plea was taken in the plaint. It was also pleaded that the tenant had committed a default in the payment of the rent, but that plea was found to be false and was rejected at the trial. The eviction of the tenant was, however, ordered on the other ground that the landlords nephew was a member of his family and the shop was required reasonably and bonafide by the landlord for the nephews new business.

3. It is the landlords case that while he is a member of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself, his brother and his father, he carries on his business separately at Jaipur, and that he purchased the shop from his own income and it is his exclusive property. The landlord has four children of his own. His nephew Radhey Shyam is 27 or 28 years old. He lives with the landlord for the last 12 or 15 years. He is unemployed and is dependant on the landlord. The landlord has, however, admitted that Radhey Shyams father is alive and that he (landlord) did not make any contribution towards the expenses of his nephews marriage. On his part, Radhey Shyam has admitted that he carried on his earlier iron business in some other premises and that he had taken them on rent in his own name.

4. The trial court took the view that since the landlord and his nephew were living together and the nephew was dependant on the landlord, the shop would be deemed to be required for the use of the plaintiffs family". On appeal, the learned Judge of the lower appellate court addressed himself to the question whether Radhey Shyam was a member of the joint Hindu family of the landlord and as he reached the conclusion that this was so and that Radhey Shyam was dependant on the land!ord,he upheld the finding of the trial court and confirmed the decree for eviction.

5. The material provision of the Act is as follows—

"13.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no court shall pass any order, in favour of a landlord............evicting the tenant............unless it is satisfied,—

(h) that the premises are required reasonably and bonafide by the landlord—

(1) for the use and occupation of himself or his family;

6. There is no definition of "family" in the Act. Its primary meaning is children, but that may be too narrow an interpretation. Consanguinity does not appear to be a pre-requisite of membership of a "family" and the word appears to have been used in its ordinary popular sense, and not as a technical term. A broad common sense view, taken with due regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, including the social order, the habits, the customs and the ideas of living of the community, would, therefore, be the most appropriate for the purpose of deciding whether a person is a member of another family or not.

7. In arriving at this decision, I am much assisted by the various cases which have been cited at the Bar. I shall first refer to the English cases for they were decided earlier in point of time.

8. In Smith Vs. Penny (1) it was held that the family is the unit of the civilisation and that the o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document