Holding

The word "family" under the Delhi Rent Control Act must be construed broadly, and the mother, brother and sister residing with the tenant constitute members of the family, so the landlord could not evict them under clause (d).

Summary

Baldev Singh rented a house in 1961 and lived there with his mother, brother and sister. In 1971 he migrated to Canada, leaving his mother, brother and sister in the premises who continued to pay rent. The landlord sought eviction under section 14(1)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, arguing that the premises were vacant because the tenant had left and that the remaining occupants were not members of the tenant's family. The Rent Controller dismissed the suit, but the Rent Control Tribunal and the Delhi High Court reversed that decision and ordered eviction. The Supreme Court held that the term "family" under the Act must be given a liberal meaning and that the mother, brother and sister were unquestionably members of the family residing in the house; consequently the landlord failed to prove the vacancy required by clause (d). The appeal was allowed, the High Court order set aside and the landlord's ejectment suit dismissed.

Issues considered

The proper interpretation of "member of the family" under s.14(1)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Whether the landlord satisfied the three essential conditions of clause (d) for eviction, particularly the vacancy requirement.
The effect of the 1976 amendment to the Act on the definition of "tenant" and inclusion of parents as family members.

Legislation cited

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958s. 14(1)(d), s. 2(1)

Subjects

Delhi Rent Control Actfamily definitionevictiontenant rightss.14(1)(d)interpretation of statuteslandlord-tenant law

Judgment

A 670

.BALDBV SAHA! BANOIA

v.

B R.C. BHASIN

April 16, 1982

[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.]

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-S. J4(J)(d)-Appllcotion for ejectment of
c tenant-Tenant ceasing to resid1 In premises. for ~ver six months-Whan
maintainable.'

Words and phrase;,-'Members of faml/y'-Who are-S. T4(JJ(d) .of Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958.

A landlord is entitled to recover possession of the premises Jet for
D residential purpose under s. 14(l)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, if he
can show that neither the tenant nor any member of his family has been residing
therein for a period of six months immediately before the date of the filing of
the application.

The appellant took the house in question on ·Jease in May, 1961 and
E lived there with his parents, sisters and a brother. He went to Canada in 1971~
leaving behind in. the house, his mother ~nd brother, who continued to pay the
rent.

The landlord filed an application for ejectment of tenant under s. 14(1)(d)
'
-
of the Delhi Rent Control Act in September. 1972 contending that with the
migration of the tenant to Canada, his mother 11nd brother i:ould not be treated
F as members of the ap'pellant's family. Tbe application was dismissed by the Rent
ControJler who found that t.be mother, brother and sister of the appellant were
undoubtedly residing in the disputed premises along with the appellant and
continued to reside there even on the date when the action for ejectment·was
brought.

The landlord's appeal against the order of the Rent ControJJer was
G a11owcd by the Rent Control Tribunal which ordered eviction of the family
members of the appellant from the tenanted house.

The appeal of the family members against the order of eviction was
dismissed by the High Court on the ground that after the exit of the main tenant
to Canada, neither the mother nor the brother or the sister could be legally
H termed as a member of the family of the appellant.

AJ1owin$ the appeal,

,'.
B.S. BANGIA V. R.C. BHASIN 611
HELD : I. (a) The Act affords intrinsic evidence to show that the non- A
applicants were undoubtedly members of the family residing in the house and
the misration of the main tenant' to Canada would make no difference. [674 HJ
'
(b) The term 'family' [has to be given not a restricted but · a wider
m~aning. There are abundant authorities to show that the term 'family' should
always ho liberally and broadlylccnstrued so as to include near relations of tho
head of the family. A beneficial provision must be meaningfully construed so B
as to advance the object of tho Act. [676 F; 678 El

Price v. Gould and Ors., [1930].Vol. 143 Law Times 333; G. V. Shukla v.
Shri Prabhu Ram Sukhram Dass Ojha, [1963]' P.I.R. (Vol. LXV) 256; Govlnd
. Dass and Ors. v. Ku/dip Singh, A.J.R.1971Delhi151 and Hira Lai and Ors. v.
Banarsi Dass, [1979] I R.L.R. 466 referred to.
(c) The Act has manifested its intention by virtue of a later amendment.
c
Tho definition of 'tenant' inserted in s~ 2(1) of the Act by the Amending Act
18 of 1976 expressly included 'parents' in sub-clause (iii) thereof and also
indicated that .apart from the heirs 'of the tenant s.,Ccificd therein, even those
persons who had been ordinarily 1ivina: in the premises with the tenant would
be treated as members of the family. [675 B; 677 H; 678 A]
2. (a) The legislature has advisedly provided that any member of the D
rami1y residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the date
of the filing of the action would be treated as a tenant. The stress is not so
much on the actual presence o( the tenant as on the fact that the members of the
family actually live and reside in the tenanted premises. Clause (d) of s. 14(1)
of the Act is a special concession given to the landlord to obtain possession· C\nly
where the tenanted premises have been compl~tely vacated by the tenant. ·
[676 G-H; 677 A]
E
(b) The landlord bad failed to prove the essential ingredients of clause (d)
of s. 14(1) of the Act so as to entitle him to evict the members of the family of
the main tenant. It could not be said that when the appellant migrated to
Canada, he bad severed all his connections with his mother so that she became
an absolute stranger to the family. Such an interpretation is against our
F
• national heritage and could never have been contemplated by the Act.
(680 B; 675 B]
·.i.._:.
-~ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1533 of
1980.

From the Judgment and Order dated the 20th February, 1980
of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in S.A.O. 149 of 1979.
G

SJ(. Meh,ta for the Appellant.

Yogeshwar Prasad, Ravinder Bana and Mrs. Rani Chhabra for
the Respondent. H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS .

A FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against
t
a judgment dated February 20, 1980 · of the Delhi' High Court
decreeing the landlord's suit for ejectment of the tenant.

The facts giving rise to the present litigation are summarised
in the judgments of the Rent Controller and the High Court and
B need not be .repeated.

Shorn of details, the positi9n seems to be that Baldev Singh
took the premises on rent on May 12, 1961 at a monthly rental of
Rs. 95/-. At the time when the tenancy started, the tenant was
living in the tenanted house with his father, mother, two sisters and
c a brother. The tenant himself was at that time a bachelor but
seems to have married subsequently. One of his sisters was married
in this very house.

As it happened, in 1971 the tenant went to Canada followed
by his wife and children. It is alleged that after having gone to
D Canada, the husband alongwith his wife took up some employment
there. Admittedly, the tenant did not return to India after 1971.
While leaving for Canada the tenant had left his mother and
brother in the house who were regularly paying rent to the landlord.
There is some controversy as to whether or not the mother and.
brother, who were left behind, were being supported by the tenant
E
or were living on their own earnings or by the income of the pro-
perty left by the tenant in India. Such a controversy however, is
of no consequence in deciding the question of law which arises for
consideration in this case.

F On September 27, 1972 the landlord filed an application for
ejectment of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement and -
non-residence of the tenant under clauses (d) and (e) of sub-section ~ ~~
(!)of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter .._~
referred to as the 'Act'). The fundamental plea taken by the land-
lord was that with the exit of the tenant from the house it became
G vacant and his mother and brother who were left behind could not
be treated as members of the family. Hence, in the eye oflaw the
tenanted premises must be deemed to have fallen vacant.

The suii was resisted by the mother, brother and sister of the
H tenant who averred that even if th"e tenant alongwith his wife and
children had shifted to Canada, the non-applicants were continuing
to live in the tem1nted premises an4 as they had been paying reQt
•

- B.S. BANGIA v. R.C. BHASIN (Fazal Ali, J.) 673

to the landlord regularly, who h~d been accepting the same, no A
•
question or the tenancy becoming vacant arose.

• ThUi, .the entire case hinges.on the . interpretation of the word
',! .. , II 'family' as also clausesJd) and (e) of s. 14(1) of the Act. So far as
· - .!1if clause (e) js conc~rned, .both the courts below found as a fact that
the landlord was not able to prove his bona fide necessity. There- 8
fore, as far as ground (e) is concerned, the same no longer survives
in view of.the findings of fact recorded by the courts below. The
only questionthatremains to be considered is whether the landlord
- ,,.,.,,-- can bring.his case for evictfon within the ambit of clause'(d) of
_..---- s. 14(1) which may J>e extracted thus:
.c
"14 (I) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary con-
tained in any other law. or contract, no order or decree for
-·(
! the. recovery of possession of any premises 'shall be made
I by any court or Controller in favour of the. landlord against
a tenant: ·
D
Provided that the Controller may, on an application
made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for
the recovery iJf possessi.on of the premises on one or more
of the following grounds only, namely :

xx xx xx E

, (d) that the premises were. let .for use as a residence
.'
and neither thll' tenant nor any member or bis family bas
been residing therein for a period of six months imqiediately
before the date of the filing of the ·application for the re-
~.· covery of possession thereof; · F

;;;;!
A close analysis of this provision would reveal that before the
' landlord can succeed, be must prove three essential ingredients- •
I '+
(l) that the premises were let out for use as a residence,
G
{2) that the tenant after ·having taken the premises has
teased to reside, and
"
(3) that apllrt from the tenant no member of his family
also bas been residing for a period of six months H
immediately berOre the d3te Qf the filing of the
application for ejectment.
•
674 SUPREME COURT REPOllTB (!982) 3 S.C.R.

A It is manifest that unless the aforesaid conditions are satisfied
the landlord cannot succeed in getting a decree for ejeetment. 19,
the instant case, while it is the admitted case of the parties that the
tenant had shifted to Canada alongwith bis wife and children, yet
he had left Ws mother, brother and ~ister in the house, hence the
second essential condition of clause (d) continues to apply with
B full force.

The learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted
that the mother, brother and sister were undoubtedly living with
the tenant And so long as they ·continued to reside in the tenanted
premises, there could be no question of the premises falling vacant.
c To this, the counsel for the landlord coun iered that neither the
mother, nor the brother .
. nor the sister could in law be treated as
members of the family of the tenant after be had himself shifted to
a country outside India. Even though while be was I iving in Delhi,
he was in Government service. Thus, it was argued that in the eye
of law, the )o-calledjfamily members would lose their status as
D members of the family of the tenant and would be pure trespassers
or licensees or 'squatters . '

While the suit of the landlord .was dismissed by th-e Rent
Controller, the Rent Control Tribunal allowed the appeal and
directed eviction of the family members of the tenant under clause
E (d) of s. 14(1) of the Act. The family members of the tenant then
went up in appeal to the High Court which also affirmed the find-
ings of the Tribunal and upheld the order of eviction passed by it.

F
The High Court was also of the view that after the exit of the main
. tenant from India to Canada, neither the mother, nor the brother,
nor the sister could be legally termed as a membe.r of the family of
the tenant. - ,,,,->
,

..
• W.e have heard counsel for the parties and given our anxious
consideration to all aspects of the matter and we feel that the High
Court has taken a palpably wrong view of the law il)·regard to the
G interpretation of the term 'member of Cthe family' as used in clause
(d) of s. 14(1) lof the Act.· In coming to its deci.sion, the High
Court seems to have completely overlooked the dominant purpose I
and the main object of the Act which affords several intrinsic and -
extrinsic evidence to show that tlie non-applicants were undoubtedly
H members of the family residing· in the house and the migration of
the main tenant to.Canada, would make no·· difference. The word
'family' has been defined in various lesaI 9iction.aries and several .
B.S. BANGIA v. R.C. BHASIN (Fazal Ali, J.) 61S
•
.... authorities-of various courts and no court has ever held that mother
or a brother or a sister who is living with the older member of the
A
family would not constitute a family of the said member. Surely, it
cannot be said by any stretch of imagination. that when the tenant
was living with his own mother· in the house and after he migrated
• to Cafladit, he had severed all his connections with his -mother so
I
that she became an absolute stranger to the family. Such an inter- 8
;,.. pretation is a~ainst . our national heritage and, as we shall show,
could never have been contemplated by the Act which has manifested
its intention by virtue of a later amendment.

Coming now to [the definitions, we find that in Word~ and
Phrases (permanent Edition-volume 16) at pp. 303-311 the word c
'family' b.as been defined thus :

"The father, the mother, and the children ordinarily
constitute a "family".

"The word "family" embraces more than a hu~band D ·
and wife and includes _children."

"A "family" constitutes all· who live in one house
under one head."
"Father and mother of two illegitimate children; and· E.
children themselves, all living together under one· roof,
constituted a "family."
(pp. 303-304)

"The word "family" . fa . statute authorizing use of
incQme for support of ward and "family" is not restricted
to those individuals to .whom ward owes a legal·duty of F'
support, but is an expression of great flexibility and is
liberally construed, and includes brothers and sisters in ·
poor financial circumstances for whom the insane ward, if
comp~tent, would make provision."
(p. 311)
G
"The general or ordinarily accepted meaning of the
word "family", as used in Compensation Act, means a
group, comprising immediate kindred, consisting of the
parents llllQ !b~ir children,· wheth~r q~tually living together
or not:' H
(p. 343)
·(Emphasis ours)

L •
676 SUPRBMB COURT RBPORTS (1982) 3 s.c.R.

A Similarly, in Webster's Third New International Dictfonary,
the word 'family' is defined thus :

"Family-household including not only the servants
but also the head of the hous,ehold and. all persom in it
related to him by blood or marriage ... ... a group of persons
8 of common ancestry.''
(p. 821)
(Emphasis supplied)

In Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary (New. Edition
1972), the word 'Family' has been de'fined thus.;
c
"family-the household, or all those who .live i.n one
house (as parents, children, servants) : parents and their +
children)"··

.In Concise Oxford Dictionary (Sixth Edition), the ·same
D definition appears to have been ·given of the word 'family" which
may be extracted thus :

"family-Members of a household, parents, children,
servants, etc. set of parents and children, or of relations,
living together or not; persons children. All descendants
E of common ancestor."

A conspectus of the connotation of the term 'family' which
emerges from a reference to the aforesaid dictionaries clearly shows
that the word 'family' has to lie given not a restricted but a wider
. meaning so as to include not only the head of the family but all .•
F
~embers or descendants from the common ancestors who are -
actuallyliving with the same head. More particularly, in our
country, blood relations do not evaporate merely because a member
of the famiiy-the father, the brother or the son-leaves his house-
hold and goes out for some time. Furthermore, in our opinion,
G the legislal!lre has advis~dly used the term that any mem_ber of the
family residing therein for a period. of six months immediately
before the date of the filing· of the action would be treated as a·
tenant. The stress is not so much on the 11ctual presence of the
tenant as on the fact that the members" of the family actually live'
H and reside in the tenanted premises. In fact, it seems to us that
clause (d) of s. 14(1) of the Act is a special concession given to the
landlord to obtain possession only where the tenanted premises have
/

ii.§. liANGlA v. il.c. BHASJN (Paza/ Aii, J.) 67;

· been completely vacated by th( tenant ·if he/ceased to exercise any .A
• control over the property either through himself or through his
blood relations.

In fact, a controversy arose as to what would happen to the
members .of thtl' family of the tenant if while residing in the premises
•
1 be dies and in order to resolve this anomaly the legislature fl!!me-
' · diately stepped in to amend certain provisions of. the Act and
J defined the actual connotation of the term ·'members of the family' .
. By virtue of Act I 8 of 1916 t])e definition of "Tenant" was inserted
so as to include various categories of persons. S.ub-clause · (iii) of
clause (i) of section 2 of the Act actually mentions the persons who
could be regarded as tenant even if main tenant dies. This sub- c
clause may be extracted thus :
"(I) "tenant" means any person . by w~om or on
whose accQunt or behalf the rent of any premises is, or •. but
for a speciliI contract, wcluld be, payable and includes-
. . D
(i) a sub-tenant;
(ii) any person continuing in possession after the termi-
natibn of his tenancy; and··
(iii) in the event of the death of the person. continuing in .
possession after the termination of his tenancy, subject E
to the order· of succession and conditions specified,
respectiyely, in Explanation I and Explanation II to.
this clause such of the aforesaid person's-.

! I (a) spouse,

r ··~.
(b) son or daughter or, where there are' both son and ·
daughter, both of them,
F

(c) parents,

(d) daughter-in-law, being the widow· of his pre-
deceased son, G
as had been ordinarily living in the premises with such
person as a member or members of his family up to
the date of .his death, but does noHnclude, ......... "
H
. It would appear that parents were expressly included in sub~
clause (iii). It bas also been provided that apart from the heirs
. /
SbPilEMli C<ibit RB!'OllTS (198~11 s.c.k.

A specified in clauses (a) to (d) (extracted above), ~Ven those persons
who had been ordinarily Jiving in the premises with the tenant
would be treated as members of the family. The statemen~. of
objtcts arid reasons for this amendment may J>e extracted thus :

"There has been a persistent demand for amendments
B to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 with a view to COD·
ferring a right of tenancy on certain heirs/successors of a
deceased statutory tenant so that they may be protected
from eviction by lan-dlords and also for simplifying the
procedure for eviction of tenants. in case the landlord re·
quires the premises bona fide for his personal occupation.
c Further, Government decided.on the 9th September, 1975
that a person who own$ his own house in his place of work
should vacate the Government accommodation allotted to ·+
him before the 31st December, 1975. Government .con·
sidered that in the ·circumstances, the Act required to be
amended urgently." . ,
D
If this was the intention of the legislature then clause (d) of
section 14( 1) of the Act could not be interpreted in a manner so as
to defeat the very object of the Act. It is well setth:d that a bene·
· ficial provision must 'be· meaningfully construed so as to advance
the object of the Act, and curing any lacuna or defect appearing in
E the same. There are abundant authorities to show that the term
"Family" must always be liberally and broadly construed so as to
include near relations of the head of the family.
In Hira Lal & Ors. v. Banarsi Dass(') even the learned Judge
who decided that case had observed at page 472 that the term
F "members of the family" on the facts and circumstances of the case
should not be given a narrow construction.
ln·Gobind Dass & Ors. vs. Ku/dip Singh(') a Division Bench
of Delhi High Court consisting of H.R. Khanna,, C.J .. (as be then
was) and Prakash Narain, J. while recognising , the necessity of
G giving a wide interpretation to the word "family" observed as
follows :

"I hold that in the section now under consideration· the
word ..family" includes bfothers and sister~ of the· deceased
H
(I) 1979 (I) R.L.R. 46~.
<1) AIR 1971 Delhi IS\.
11.S. llANGIA v. it:c. ill!AslN (Fozai Ali, J.) 619
living with her at the time of her death. I think that that A
meaning is required by the ordinary acceptation of the
• · word in this connection and that the legislature has used
the wo~d "family" to introduce a flexible and wide term."

In Mr8. G. V. Shukla v. Shri Prabhu Ram Sukhram Dass -
• Ojha(1) Mahajan, J. (as he then was) observed as follows: B

.
"Therefore, it must be held that" the word. 'family' is

-
capable of wider interpretation, but that interpretation
must have relation to the existing facts and circumstances
proved on the record in each case."
,. liven as far back as 1930, Wright, J. in· Price v. Gould &
c
Ors(') (a King's Bench decision) had clearly held that the. word
"family" included brothers and sisters and in this connection
observed as follows :

"I find as a fact that· the brothers and sisters were D
residing with the deceased at the time of her death ..... ..
It has been laid· down tb.at the primary meaning of the
word "family" is children, hut that primary meaning is
clearly susceptible of wider interpretation, because the
cases decide that the exact scope of the word must depend
on the ·context and the other provisions of the will or deed E
in view of the surrounding circumstances."

"Thus, in Snow v. Teed (1870, 23 L.T. Rep. 303; L. Rep. 9

- '
Bq. 622) it was held that the word "family" could be ex-
tended beyond not merely children but even beyond the
statutory next of kin."

Jn view, however, of the very clear 'and plain. language of
F -

+ clause (d) of section 14(1) of the Act itself, we do not want to
burden this judgment by multiplying authorities.
G
On a point of fact, we might mention that €he Rent Con-
troller had given a clear finding that t~e mother, younger brother
·, · (Davinder . Kumar Bangia) and sister (Vijay Lakshmi) were
undoubtedly residing in the disputed premises alongwith the main
H
(1) 1963 P.L.R. (vol. LXV) 256.
(2) 1930 (vol. 143) Law Times 333.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS I198~1 j s.c.k

A tenant and continued to reside there even on the date ·when the
·action for ejectment was brought.
•
In these circumstances, we are sati~fied that the view taken by
the High Court is legally erroneous and cannot be supported. The
landlord has miserably failed· to prove· the essential ingredients of
B · clause (d) of section 14(1) of the Act so as· to entitle him to evict
the members of the family of the main tenant.

We therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and
order of the High Court and dismiss the plaintiff's ;action for eject-
ment and restore the judgment of the Rent Controller. In the
c peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost.

H.L.C. Appeal allowed.

•

' ,

•