The definition of 'family' and 'tenant' under the Act, 1972 does not include 'brother' within its scope.

Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.K.Maurya, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. It is contended that 'brother' is not included in the definition of 'family' under Section 3(g) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") but Revisional Court, in a wholly illegal and unauthorized manner, has held that 'brother' is also included within the term 'family' since accommodation in question is a non residential and has, therefore, passed the impugned order dated 24.7.2007, which is wholly illegal.

3. The definition of family under Section 3(g) of Act, 1972. 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 grand-parents 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."

4. Perusal thereof shows that neither there is distinction in definition of 'family' vis a vis residential or non residential building nor it included 'brother".

5. Counsel for the respondent drew my attention to Section 3(a) of Act, 1972, which defines tenant and reads as under:

"tenant", in relation to a building, means a person by whom its rent is payable, and on the tenant's death-

(1) in the case of a residential building, such only of his heirs as normally resided with him in the building at the time of his death ;

(2) in the case of a non-residential building, his heirs ;

Explanation- An occupant of a room in a hotel or a lodging house shall not be deemed to be a tenant."

6. Therein also, I find that in case of non residential building, the term 'tenant' include his heirs after the death of original tenant i.e. his widow, daughter or sons or any of them who is alive. 'Brother' will not be heir or representative of such deceased tenant and therefore, Section 3(a) of Act, 1972 also does not come into picture in the case in hand by any stretch of imagination. The impugned order therefore, is patently illegal.

7. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.7.2007 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Fatehpur is hereby set aside.