The court interpreted the landlord's needs liberally, considering the moral obligations and support provided by the landlord to his widowed daughter and her children as making their needs his needs.

1. This is a landlord's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the orders of the Rent Controller, Nagpur, and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nagpur, rejecting his application for permission to terminate the tenancy of the Respondent 1 and for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other writ as this Court thinks proper.

2. It is common ground that the Petitioner resides at Sausar and that he is not occupying any premises of his own in the city of Nagpur. He stated in his application to the Rent Controller that he needs the house in question, which is in the -occupation of Respondent 1 as his tenant, for his own residence and also for the residence of his widowed daughter and her children who are dependant on him, and who are staying in a rented house at Nagpur. The Rent Controller held that the Petitioner's need for his own residence was not bona fide and that the need of the widowed daughter and her children, though genuine, cannot be regarded as the need of the landlord. In this view, he dismissed the application. The Additional Deputy Commissioner upheld the decision of the Rent Controller in appeal.

3. The main point canvassed before us was that the need of the widowed daughter and her children must be deemed to be the need of the landlord. In our opinion, the contention of the Petitioner is correct and must be upheld. No doubt, after marriage the daughter passes out of the father's family and goes into that of the husband. But the fact of marriage does not sever the blood relationship which exists between a father and his daughter. The existence of this relationship does give rise to certain moral obligations. Where, in pursuance of such moral obligations, a father affords support to his daughter and her children, their needs become his needs. There is nothing in the Rent Control Order which restricts a landlord's needs to his personal needs. As this Court has pointed out in - V M Deshmukh v. K M Kothari, 1951 AIR(Nag) 51 (A), the word 'his' as used in Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, must be interpreted liberally and not in a narrow way. So interpreted, we are of opinion that it would include hot only the members of the landlord's family but also all those persons who are Defendant on him and whose responsibilities he has accepted.

4. Language similar to that used in Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order has been interpreted liberally in England, as would appear from the decision in - Smith v. Penny, 1946 2 AllER 672 (B) and - Jones v. Whitehill, 1950 1 AllER 71 (C). In the first of these cases, the words for himself were interpreted to include the members of the landlord's family. In the other, a niece of the tenant's wife was regarded as falling within the meaning of 'members of the tenant's family.' There are two Indian decisions which we may also refer to. One of them is reported in - Institute of Radio Technology v. Pandurang, 1946 AIR(Bom) 212 (D). In that case, the words his own occupation in Section 11 of the Bombay Rent Restriction Act, 1939, were interpreted to mean the occupation of the landlord and all persons who are dependant on him.

5. A wider interpretation has been given to these words by Chagla C.J., in - Parikh v. Occhalal Parikh', cited at page 257 of the Principles of Rent Control by R.B. Andhyarujina. According to the learned Chief Justice, looking to the customs of the society and the nature of social ties which subsist between the different members of the family in India, a member of the family of the landlord, for whom the premises are required, need not necessarily be dependant upon the landlord. The view we are taking is thus in line with that taken by other Courts.

6. Upon the view we take, we quash the orders of the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Rent Controller and instead accord permission to the Petitioner to terminate the tenancy of the Respondent 1. Costs of this petition shall be bo