The definition of 'family' under Section 3(g) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972, applies only to male lineal descendants.

M. N. Shukla, J.

1. SMT. Tarawati, the landlady, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 21-5-1974 passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 22 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) allowing the tenant's appeal and rejecting the application for release made by the landlady under Section 21 of the Act.

2. THE petitioner is the owner and landlady of house No. 105/262, Gandhi Chowk, Kanpur. The opposite party No. 1 is a tenant in a portion of the said house on a monthly rent of Rs. 90/-. The petitioner applied for, release of the accommodation in the tenancy of the opposite party No. 1 on the allegations that her family consisted of herself, her daughter, namely Smt. Prem Lata, her son-in-law Sri Shiva Nand Agnihotri, her grand daughter and her grand sons, besides a maid servant. It was alleged that Smt. Prem Lata was residing with her mother even after her marriage. She was the Principal of Guru Nanak Inter College, Kanpur and her husband was a Supervisor in the Inspectorate of Central Store, Kanpur. The grand daughter was said to be a student of M.B.B.S. (V year). One grand son was a student of III year of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur while another grand-son was a student of the I year in the said Institute. The petitioner claimed to have opened a Nursery School in the adjoining premises No. 105/263, the owner of which was pressing her to vacate the same. The benefit of Explanation 4 to Section 21 of the Act was also claimed by the landlady on the ground that the accommodation occupied by the opposite party No. 1 was separated from the remaining accommodation in the house by a mere wall and the two portions were connected with each other and some portions were actually in common use of the landlady and the tenant.

The opposite party No. 1 contested the petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the application was not bona fide, that it was merely a counter blast to a suit under Section 5 (4) of the U. P. Act III of 1947 filed by the tenant which was pending and which fact had been concealed. It was denied that the petitioner's daughter, son-in-law and their children constituted the petitioner's family. The petitioner's alleged need for additional accommodation was also denied. As regards Explanation 4 to Section 21 it was stated that there was a dividing wall between the tenant's portion and that of the landlady and the two portions were distinct and independent of each other and hence the provisions of Explanation 4 to Section 21 were not attracted.

3. THE Prescribed Authority by its order dated 22-1-1973 allowed the release application on the sole basis that the case would be governed by Explanation 4 to Section 21. It recorded a clear finding that the petitioner's family according to the definition of the term contained in the Act consisted of herself alone and the accommodation already occupied by her in the building in dispute was sufficient for her requirements and the accommodation in dispute was not bona fide needed by her. The learned III Additional District Judge, Kanpur set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the application for release. He confirmed the finding of the Prescribed Authority to the effect that the landlady's need was not bona fide. He reversed the finding of the Prescribed Authority on the applicability of Explanation 4 to Sec. 21 and held that it was not applicable to the facts of the present case as the two portions of the accommodation occupied by the landlady and the tenant respectively were quite independent of each other and no portion of the accommodation was in common use of the parties. It agreed with the view of the Prescribed Authority that the (landlady's family consisted of her self only and her daughter, son-in-law and her children could not be taken into account for the purposes of determining her family. On the