The definition of "family" under Section 3 (g) of the UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 includes male lineal descendants, including grandsons, and an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act can be filed for the need of a grandson.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 8. 10. 1996 passed by the Prescribed authority allowing the release application filed by the landlord-respondents under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 31. 5. 1997 dismissing the appeal against the said order.

( 2 ) JAGDISH Singh was the landlord of the premises in question. He filed an application for release of the shop in question on the ground that he wants to settle his grandson. Alok Kumar, in business of general merchandise and for that purpose he bona fide requires the shop in question. During the pendency of the proceedings, Jagdish Singh, the landlord died and his heirs were substituted. He died leaving behind him four sons, namely. Ramesh Chand. Subhash Chand. Nek chand and Manak Chand. An application for amendment to the application for release was filed and the applicants set up the need for Akshay Kumar son of Nek Chand and it was stated that alok Kumar, another son of Nek Chand is carrying on business which was being carried on by late Jagdish Singh.

( 3 ) THE release application was contested by the petitioners. It was stated that there was a partition in the family and the shop in question had fallen in the share of Manak Chand and the release application cannot be allowed for the need of his nephew. It was further asserted that akshay Kumar was assisting his father in the business and he is not unemployed and in any case various other shops were vacant in which he can carry on his business. The Prescribed Authority, considering all the aspects, found that the need of Akshay Kumar was bona fide and genuine and released the shop in favour of respondents on 8. 10. 1996. It came to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to prove that there was a partition in the family. Akshay Kumar was not assisting his father and there was no other vacant accommodation in which Akshay Kumar can carry on business. The petitioner filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal by the Impugned order dated 31. 5. 1997.

( 4 ) I have heard Sri K. K. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri. Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the respondents.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners urged that the release application for the need of grandson cannot be entertained in an application filed by the grandfather under Section 21 (1) (a) of the act. He has placed reliance upon the decision Smt. Rahiman v. District Judge, Barabanki and others, 1984 (2) LCD 49, wherein the Court considering the provisions of Rule 16 (2) (d) held that this rule Is not applicable in respect of grandson. Rule 16 (2) (d) reads as under: "where a son or unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant of the landlord has, after the building was originally let out completed his or her technical education and is not employed in Government service, and wants to engage in self-employment, his or her need shall be given due consideration. "

( 6 ) THE Court was not considering the definition of family as given under Section 3 (g) of the Act which reads as under :

"family", in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building, means, his or her (i) spouse, (ii) male lineal descendants, (iii) such parents, grandparents and any unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant, as may have been normally residing with him or her. and includes, in relation to a landlord, any female having a legal right of residence in that building. "

It includes the male lineal descendants. It is not confined only to the son. The application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act can be filed by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family.

( 7 ) IN Murlidhar v. XIth Additional District Judge and others, 19