Civil Appeal No 681 of 1985
From the Judgment and Order dated 24884 of the High Court of Gujarat in SCA No 12861980
TV Mehta MN Shroff and KMM Khan for the Appellant
SH Sheth Vimal Dave and SC Patel for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THAKKAR J
In the course of an exercise in interpretation of a provision Section 63B of Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act of 1960 complains the appellant state the High Court has misinterpreted the said provision which had been correctly interpreted by the Tribunal Gujarat Revenue Tribunal
The debate in the present appeal has centred on this plea the meritlessness of which will become evident presently
The provision in question viz Section 63B is embodied in Chapter III of the Ceiling Act which bears the caption Fixation of Ceiling on Holding Land Determination of Surplus Land and Acquisition thereof
The concerned provision in so far as material to the problem posed by the present appeal deserves to be quoted 63B Where a family or a joint family consists of more than five members comprising a person and other members belonging to all or any of the following categories namely i minor son ii widow of a pre deceased son 1071 iii minor son or unmarried daughter of a pre deceased son where his or her mother is dead such family shall be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area to the extent of one fifth of the ceiling area for each member in excess of five so however that the total holding of the family does not exceed twice the ceiling area and in such a case in relation to the holding of such family such area shall be deemed to be the ceiling area Provided x x x x x x The philosophy of this provision stares one in the eyes
When a family is both large and comprises which expression is employed in the sense of includes Collins  dictionary defines comprise as   to include  amongst it members who are subject to one or other of the socio economic handicaps fairness demands that such family is permitted to retain some more land than other families which are not so handicapped
The very nature of the three categories which are specified minors widow of a pre deceased son minor son or unmarried daughter of a predeceased son who has lost both parents conveys this message of plight
Understandable it is that for such a family which has to carry the burden of misery the community acting through the legislature has a soft corner and pours milk of human kindness into this benevolent provision aimed at relieving their distress to an extent
Such is the design
Two tests must be satisfied commulatively for being eligible to claim the benefit 1 The size of the family No of members should exceed 5 2 It must consist of members one or more of whom belong to one or other of the specified handicapped categories
Now the factual backdrop in which the problem of interpretation has surfaced needs to be traced
The family of the respondent landholder consisted of 9 members including himself
The land holder his mother his wife his three minor sons and his three minor daughters
The question which arose was whether the land holder was entitled to the benefit of Section 63B which provides that where a family or a joint family consists of more than 5 members comprising a person and other persons belonging to all or any of the specified categories such family shall be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area to the extent of 15 of the ceiling area for each member of the specified 1072 category in excess of five subject to the rider that the total holding of the family does not exceed twice the ceiling area
The Tribunal took the view that Section 63B was not attracted to the case of the said land holder notwithstanding the fact that his family consisted of 9 members and also comprised of other members belonging to specified category i minor son
The view taken by the Tribunal is reflected in the following passage extracted from its order dated January 24 1978 which gave rise to the Writ Petition in the High Court which in turn has given rise to the present appeal by special leave As regards the other contention of Shri RK Panchal it may be observed that for the purpose of section 63B family of the applicant consisted of not more than five members eventhough as a matter of fact there are nine members in his family because the applicant and his wife will count as one unit and his minor sons will count as four units for the purpose of section 63B of the Act and thus there are only five members in the family for the purpose of counting the unit
Therefore the family is not entitled to hold more than 45 acres of land on the ground that there are nine members in the family as argued by Shri RK Panchal
In this view of the matter the findings of the Mamlatdar and confirmed by the Deputy Collector do not deserve to be interfered with
 Upon the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226227 of the Constitution of India being invoked the High Court reversed the Tribunal
Because the reasoning unfolded in the aforesaid passage was inconsistent with the exposition of law made by the High Court in its earlier pronouncement
Reliance was placed on Nathekhan s Gujarat Law Reporter Vol
XXV 3 p 1473 Nathekhan vs Mamlatdar Vadgam case wherein Ahmadi J had earlier taken a contrary view
Says Ahmadi J With respect the Tribunal s thinking is confused Sub section 3B of Sec 6 merely lays down that where a family consists of more than five members comprising a person and other members of the categories mentioned therein namely i minor son ii widow of a pre deceased son iii Minor son or unmarried daughter of a pre deceased son where his or her mother is dead such family shall be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area to the extent of one fifth of the ceiling area for each member in 1073 excess of five provided the total holding of the family does not exceed twice the ceiling area
A bare perusal of this sub section makes it clear that in order to avail two conditions must be satisfied namely i the family should consist of more than five members and ii it should have amongst it the categories of members mentioned in the three sub clauses
If the family does not consist of more than five members but has amongst it any of the members mentioned in the three sub clauses it will not be entitled to the benefit of enlargement of the ceiling area
Therefore the benefit of enlargement of the ceiling area will ensure to only that family where the total number of members is more than five and amongst them are members belonging to the categories mentioned therein
However there is nothing in the sub section wherefrom it can be inferred that the wife widowed mother and unmarried daughters are intended to be excluded from the family that is group or unit constituting the family
I am therefore of the opinion that all the authorities including the Tribunal were wrong in coming to the conclusion that the aforesaid female members of the family had to be excluded for the purpose of determining the size of the family
 We fully concur with this view
The reasons are not far to seek
It is not in dispute that the family of the land holder consisted of 9 members if the heads of the members of the family are counted
The first condition required to be satisfied in order to attract Section 63B is that the family must consist of more than 5 members
The debate has centred round the question as to how the number of the members constituting the family should be counted
In counting the members of the family the Tribunal has excluded from consideration the mother and the three minor daughters of the land holder
Excluding these four persons the family consisted of 5 members
In that event Section 63B will not be attracted because one of the conditions precedent for the applicability of the provision is that the family must consist of more than 5 members
The High Court on the other hand has upheld the contention of the land holder that his family in fact consisted of 9 members inasmuch as his mother and his wife as also his minor daughters were members of his family
The Tribunal in terms observed that for the purpose of Section 63B family of the applicant consisted of not more than 5 members eventhough as a 1074 matter of fact there are 9 members in his family This reasoning is obviously fallacious
The expression family  has not been defined in the Act
One has therefore to go by the concept of family as it is commonly understood taking into account the dictionary meaning of the expression
Collins English Dictionary defines family as a primary social group consisting of parents and their offspring the principal function of which is provision for its members a group of persons related by blood a group descended from a common ancestor all the persons living together in one household
 Having regard to this definition it can be safely concluded that the land holder his wife and his offspring consisting of three minor sons and three minor daughters would certainly constitute a family even if the mother of the land holder is excluded from consideration
Thus in any view the family of the land holder consisted of 8 members including himself his wife three minor sons and three minor daughters
The Tribunal was therefore clearly in error in taking the view that the family consisted of not more than 5 members
Learned counsel for the appellant however contended that in applying the test whether or not the family consisted of 5 members regard must be had only to the members of the family belonging to the specified category namely minor sons in so far as the composition of the family of the land holder in the present case is concerned
In other words the contention is that the land holder his wife and his three minor sons are the only five persons of the family for the purposes of Section 63B
In our opinion there is no warrant for reading Section 63B in this artificial and truncated manner
On a plain reading Section 63B is attracted where a family consists of more than 5 members comprising a person and other members belonging to all or any one of the following categories viz i minor son   In the present case the family of the land holder consists of more than 5 members
The family also includes persons of one of the specified categories viz the minor sons
Thus all the ingredients of Section 63B are satisfied
In order to claim benefit of Section 63B the test which must be satisfied is a two fold test
First whether the claimant s family consists of more than five persons
In the present case the answer to this test is in the affirmative
1075 The second test that is required to be answered in favour of the person who claims the benefit of Section 63B is that such family must also comprise of one individual and other members besides himself who must belong to all or any of the three specified categories
This test is also answered in favour of the respondent inasmuch as the family does comprise of the respondent and other members and from out of the other members three belong to one of the specified categories viz minor son 
In otherwords access to Section 63B is barred by two doors
In order to secure entry the family must consist of more than 5 persons
If there are more than 5 persons including the land holder himself the first door will be opened and the land holder will be entitled to have an access provided the second door does not bar his entry inside the beneficial area
The second door will also be opened provided that some of the other members meaning thereby members other than individual land holder belong to one of the three categories specified in the section
The second door would be opened provided he has got minor sons
Admittedly the respondent has three minor sons
Therefore both the doors which bar the access of the land holder to the benevolent provisions are opened
It is not possible to accede to the submission that in ascertaining whether or not the pre condition is satisfied only the members of the specified category should be taken into account
For to do so would be to kill the letter as well as the spirit of the concerned provision
We are therefore not prepared to uphold the plea of the appellant state that the High Court has not correctly interpreted the relevant provision in the case giving rise to the present appeal
Under the circumstances the appeal deserves to fail
But before we conclude we must set aright an inadvertent error made by the High Court in making computation of the extent of the additional land which the respondent was entitled to hold in excess of the prescribed ceiling in the context of section 63B
Computation in this behalf must be made by applying the formula embodied in Section 63B viz that the family shall be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area to the extent of one fifth of the ceiling area for each member in excess of five subject to the rider that the total area does not exceed twice the ceiling area
It needs to be clarified that on a true interpretation of the provision each member in excess of five must of logical necessity mean each such  member of the specified handicapped category
In the present case there were 3 members in the family and it comprised of three members of the specified category viz 3 minor sons
Under the circumstances for each minor son in excess of the five members the holder was entitled to 15th of the ceiling area in excess of the pre 1076 scribed ceiling
That is to say he was entitled to 35th of the prescribed ceiling over and above the ceiling area subject to the rider that the total retainable holding of the family did not exceed twice the ceiling area
This aspect was lost sight of by the High Court in making the computation
Of course in the ultimate result in the facts of the present case nothing turns on it as in any view of the matter the extent of the land held by the family computed on this basis would not exceed twice the ceiling area
The holding of the family consisted of 60 acres and 4 gunthas
And making a computation on the aforesaid basis having regard to the fact that the ceiling area was 45 acres the family would be entitled to additional 27 acres 4559x327
Thus he would be entitled to hold 72 acres 452772 whereas the holding of respondent consisted of only 60 acres
Therefore the holding of the family was not in excess of the prescribed ceiling as computed in the aforesaid manner
While the High Court in terms followed its earlier decision in Nathekhan s case supra it overlooked the ratio of the decision in this behalf
What was overlooked was the ratio reflected in the passage from para 6 of the decision extracted hereinbelow which is in accord with formula indicated by us 
There were two minor sons in the family of Nathekhan and one minor son in the family of Majamkhan
Since the family unit of each brother exceeded five in number so far as Nathekhan is concerned he was entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area to the extent of two fifth of the ceiling area and Majamkhan with one minor son was entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area to the extent of one fifth thereof
Since the excess land in the case of each brother was of 4 acres and 385 gunthas being less than even one fifth of the ceiling area it could not be held that their holding exceeded the permissible ceiling
 We are therefore of the opinion that this appeal deserves to fail subject to the clarification in regard to the true position as regards computation of the permissible extent of land which can be held in the context of section 63B of the Act
The appeal is disposed of accordingly
There will be no order regarding costs
PSS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
 The appellant is an advocate
Pursuant to an oral agreement he let out to the respondent a part of his residential premises comprising of two rooms above the garage referred to as servants quarters and a hall on the ground floor in July 1976 at Rs600 pm
Since November 1976 the respondent started paying two separate amounts of Rs250 and Rs350 the latter amount by means of cheques in the name of Balkunj a registered trust of which he was the Secretary
In January 1980 the landlord filed an eviction petition under proviso e to section 141 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 on the ground that he required the servants  quarters for his servants and the hall for his office and library
The respondent resisted the petition on a number of grounds
The two grounds with which this Court is concerned are that 1 two separate tenancies came to be created in respect of the premises in dispute and hence the petition as filed was not maintainable and 2 the intended use of the hall as office constituted a non residential use and therefore outside the purview of proviso e to section 141
The Rent Controller held that there was a single tenancy that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his use and that setting up his office and library fell within the scope of the relevant statutory provision
The High Court in the revision petition under sub 1059 section 8 of section 25B of the Act reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and modified the eviction order passed by him restricting it to the servant s quarters only
In regard to the first ground the respondent submits that the fact that the landlord was aware of the use of the hall by the trust and his acceptance of the cheques on behalf of the trust prove that the trust had been accepted as the tenant in respect of the hall
In this connection the respondent relies on the appellant s letter dated 26111978 to the respondent in which the landlord specifically refers to the fact that five of the dishonoured cheques being returned by him belong to the trust
The appellant on the other hand submits that acceptance of two cheques alone cannot lead to the conclusion that a separate tenancy had been created in respect of the hall between Balkunj and the petitioner
The appellant further relies on the two letters dated 581977 and 1511978 written by him to the respondent categorically denying the tenancy on behalf of Balkunj
He further submits that the finding of the Rent Controller that there was only a single tenancy was essentially a finding of fact based on material and circumstances with which the High Court should not have interfered
In regard to the second ground the respondent urges that the intended use of the hall by the appellant as office and library could not amount to a residential requirement
Allowing the appeal this Court  HELD 1 It is no doubt true that the rent has been paid by two cheques since November 1976 but the mere payment of rent by two cheques in the circumstances of this case cannot mean that there were two tenancies
The landlord was entitled to a rent of Rs600pm
and so long as he got this amount it was immaterial for him whether the amount was paid in a lump sum or by one cheque or more than one cheque and who the makers of the cheques were
It is not unusual to come across cases where a tenant pays the rent not by a cheque drawn by himself but by a cheque drawn by some other concern in which he has an interest such as a partnership concern a limited company etc
It is also true that the landlord might have been aware that certain activities of Balkunj were being carried on in the hall
But this can only mean that the landlord permitted the tenant to use a portion of the premises for running the activities of the trust
Even assuming that these two facts might have been sufficient to draw any such inference as is suggested the two letters of the landlord dated 5877 and 15178 1060 place the matter beyond all doubt
The landlord had categorically asserted in these letters that he did not recognize Balkunj as his tenant
1063G H 1064A E 2 The finding of the Rent Controller that there was only a single tenancy was essentially a finding of fact with which the High Court should not have interfered
Though under Section 25B8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act the powers of the High Court are somewhat wider than similar powers of revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code it is well established by a series of decisions of this Court that the power of revision under the Rent Control Act does not entitle the High Court to enter into the merits of the factual controversies between the parties and to reverse findings of fact in this regard
1064F H 1065A 3 Any professional man of standing would necessarily have to set apart a portion of his residence as a study office or library and the premises do not cease to be his residence because of that
In ascertaining the bona fide need of residence in the case of a lawyer the fact that a room has to be used as an office cannot be a consideration extraneous to the scope and content of clausee of the proviso to section 141
It may be that in a case where a lawyer seeks to evict a tenant on the ground that the entire premises sought to be got vacated are solely needed by him for use as his office and library his requirement may not satisfy the requirements of clausee of the proviso to section 141
1066A B 1065F G 1 Sheodhari Rai vs Suraj Prasad Singh AIR 1954 SC 758 2 Helper Girdharbhai vs Saiyed Mohmad   3 Sushila Devi vs Avinash Chandra Jain  4 Mohanlal vs Kondi   5 Subramania Mudaliar vs Kolapur Traders and 6 Khanna vs Batra  referred to