Ratio(s) Decidendi-Tenant is entitled to protection from eviction.

The petitioner is the unsuccessful landlord whose petition for eviction of the respondent under section 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of i960) from premises No. 8 Abhirama-puram First Street, Madras-18 on the ground that he bona fide required the same for his own use and occupation and also for the use of his son, had been dismissed. The application for eviction filed by the petitioner was contested by the respondent on the ground that the requirement of the petitioner was not bona fide and that, in any event, her two daughters who are living with her having been employed in essential service an eviction order cannot be passed in view of the protection given under section 10 (4) of the Act. The Rent Controller found that the petitioner’s requirement of the premises for the occuption of himself and his son is bona fide. But he found that the petitioner is not entitled to an order of eviction on the ground that the respondent’s daughters are employed in essential service and as such an order of eviction could not be passed in view of section 10(4)(i) of the Act. There was an appeal to the appellate authority and the appellate authority also held that the petitioner’s requirement of the premises for his own occupation was bona fide. It, however, held that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of section 10(4) (i) of the Act in view of the fact that her daughters are employed in -essential service. The petitioner is questioning the correctness of the finding of the Courts below that he is not entitled to an order of eviction in view of section 10(4) of the Act.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Courts below were in error in holding that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of section 10(4)(i) of the Act so as to prevent the petitioner from getting an order of eviction on the ground of his bona fide requirement of the premises.

3. It is not in dispute that one of the daughters of the respondent is employed in the Southern Railway and the other daughter is employed in the Food Corporation of India. Even though the •employment in the Food Corporation of India cannot be said to be a notified essential service, the employment of one of the daughters in the Southern Railway can be said to be in essential service. But whether both the daughters are employed in essential service or one of them alone is employed in essential service, the legal position arising will be the same. Hence I proceed to treat both of them as being in essential service for considering the scope of section 10(4)(i).

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the protection under section 10(4)(i) will be available only to the tenant and not to any other member of his family and that the view of the Courts below that the definition of “tenant” under section 2 (8) will take in the sons and daughters as well cannot be held to be a tenable.

5. Section 10(4) so far as it is relevant for the present discussion is as follows:

“No order for eviction shall be passed under sub-section (3) (i) against any tenant who is engaged in any employment or class of employment notified by the Government as an essential service for the purpose of this sub-section, unless the landlord is himself engaged in any employment or class of employment which has been so notified..........”

This sub-section in terms gives protection to a tenant who is engaged in any employment or class of employment notified by the Government as an essential service for the purpose of the sub-section. A “tenant” has been defined under section 2 (8) as meaning “any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes the surviving spouse, or any son, or daughter, or the legal representative of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of the tenant’s family upto the death of tenant....” The question is whether the daughters of the respondent who is the t