R.C. Lahoti, J. -- 1. A learned Judge (P.P. Naolekar, J.) of this Court while hearing a second appeal has found it difficult to subscribe to the view taken by another learned Judge of this Court sitting singly, in Lalta Prasad v. Ramcharan [1986 JLJ 713 = 1989 MPU 233]. He has referred the following two questions for consideration by a Division Bench, which have been placed before us by Hon'ble the Chief Justice:

"1. Whether to be member of the family within section 2 (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, it is necessary to live jointly with the landlord and 'joint living' means actual living or residing continuously with landlord?

2. Whether separated son or other member as mentioned under Sec. 2 (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, are members of the family for the purpose of section 2 (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961?"

2. The brief facts of the case are these: The respondent Balram is admittedly a landlord of the suit accommodation. He has two sons, namely, Rohit Prasad and Govind Prasad, both employees of the University of Jabalpur living in rented houses in Jabalpur on account of great paucity of accommodation with the father/landlord. The suit accommodation having been purchased pre-dominently with the idea of providing residential accommodation to his sons, the landlord Balram filed the present suit seeking ejectment of the tenant apparently on the ground available under Sec. 12 (i) (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short). The two Courts below decreed the suit. In the appeal preferred by the tenant, the contention of law canvassed was that the sons whose requirement was in issue were residing separately from the landlord and hence were not covered by the definition of 'member of the family', the phrase as used in Sec. 12 (1) (e) and defined in Sec. 2 (e) of the Act. Reliance by the tenant-appellant was placed on Lalta Prasad's case (supra) wherein it has been held:

"A person living jointly with the landlord within the meaning of expression 'living jointly' occurring in the definition of 'member of the family' in section 2 (e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act need not necessarily be dependant on him. A person must be actually living or residing continuously for all intent and purposes jointly with the landlord factually exercising right to live with the landlord jointly envisaged under section 2 (e) of the Act."

3. Sections 12 (1) (e) and 2 (e) of the Act provide as under:

"12. Restrictions on eviction of tenants -- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds only, namely;

(e) that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned."

"2. Definition-- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires --

(e) "member of the family" in case of any person means the spouse, son, unmarried daughter, father, grandfather, mother, grandmother, brother, unmarried sister, paternal uncle, paternal uncle's wife or widow, or brother's son or unmarried daughter living jointly with, or any other relation dependent on him;"

4. A bare reading of the definition of 'member of the family' shows that it embraces within its ken three categories of persons - (1) the spouse, son, unmarried daughter, father, grandfather, mother, grandmother, brother, unmarried sister, paternal uncle, paternal uncle's wife or widow; (2) or brother's son, or unmarried daughter living jointly with him; and (3) or any other relatio