BALDEV SAHAI BAGLA V. R.C. BHASIN, AIR 1982 SC 1091
FACTS
The appellant 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 a brother. The tenant himself was at that time a bachelor but seems to have married subsequently.
In 1971 the tenant went to Canada followed by his wife and children. It is alleged that after having gone to Canada, 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.
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 Section 14(1)(d) and (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
The fundamental plea taken by the landlord was that with the exit of the tenant from the house it became vacant and his mother and brother who were left behind could not be treated as members of the family. Hence, in the eye of law the tenanted premises must be deemed to have fallen vacant.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Rent Controller: suit of the landlord was dismissed by the rent controller.
Rent Control Tribunal: allowed the appeal and directed the eviction of the family members.
High Court: was 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 member of the family of the tenant.
ISSUE
What is the interpretation of the term “Family”?
JUDGEMENT
A close analysis of this provision would reveal that before the landlord can succeed, he must prove three essential ingredients –
(1) that the premises were let out for use as a residence,
(2) that the tenant after having taken the premises has ceased to reside, and
(3) that apart from the tenant no member of his family also has been residing for a period of six months immediately before the date of the filing of the application for ejectment.
The court observed that the word “family” has to be given not a restricted but a wider meaning so as to include not only the head of the family but all members or descendants from the common ancestors who are actually living with the same head. The legislature has wisely used the term that any member of the family residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the actual presence of the tenant as on the fact that the members of the family actually live and reside in the tenanted premises.
It was mentioned that the Rent Controller had given a clear finding that the mother, younger brother and sister were undoubtedly residing in the disputed premises along with the main tenant and continued to reside there even on the date when the action for ejectment was brought.
In these circumstances, the court was satisfied 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 clause (d) of the proviso to S.14(1) of the Act so as to entitle him to evict the members of the family of the main tenant.
Therefore, the appeal was allowed, the judgement and order of the High Court was set aside and the judgement of the Rent Controller was restored.