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 SAO 149 of 1979
SK Mehta for the Appellant
Yogeshwar Prasad Ravinder Bana and Mrs Rani Chhabra for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 672 FAZAL ALI J
This appeal by special leave is directed against 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 need not be repeated
Shorn of details the position 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 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 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 or were living on their own earnings or by the income of the property 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
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 1 of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act 
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
The suit was resisted by the mother brother and sister of the tenant who averred that even if the tenant alongwith his wife and children had shifted to Canada the non applicants were continuing to live in the tenanted premises and as they had been paying rent 673 to the landlord regularly who had been accepting the same no question of the tenancy becoming vacant arose
Thus the entire case hinges on the interpretation of the word family  as also clauses d and e of section 1411 of the Act
So far as clause e is concerned both the courts below found as a fact that the landlord was not able to prove his bona fide necessity
Therefore 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 question that remains to be considered is whether the landlord can bring his case for eviction within the ambit of clause d of section 141 which may be extracted thus 14 1 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant Provided that the Controller may on an application made to him in the prescribed manner make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only namely XX XX XX d that the premises were let for use as a residence and 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 for the recovery of possession thereof 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
674 It is manifest that unless the aforesaid conditions are satisfied the landlord cannot succeed in getting a decree for ejectment
In the instant case while it is the admitted case of the parties that the tenant had shifted to Canada alongwith his wife and children yet he had left his mother brother and sister in the house hence the second essential condition of clause d continues to apply with 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
To this the counsel for the landlord countered that neither the mother nor the brother nor the sister could in law be treated as members of the family of the tenant after he had himself shifted to a country outside India
Even though while he was living in Delhi he was in Government service
Thus it was argued that in the eye of law the so called family members would lose their status as 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 the Rent Controller the Rent Control Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed eviction of the family members of the tenant under clause d of section 141 of the Act
The family members of the tenant then went up in appeal to the High Court which also affirmed the findings of the Tribunal and upheld the order of eviction passed by it
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 member of the family of the tenant
We 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 in regard to the interpretation of the term member of the family  as used in clause d of section 141 of the Act
In coming to its decision the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the dominant purpose and the main object of the Act which affords several intrinsic and extrinsic evidence to show that the non applicants were undoubtedly 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 legal dictionaries and several 675 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 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 Canada he had severed all his connections with his mother so that she became an absolute stranger to the family
Such an interpretation is against 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 Words and Phrases permanent Edition volume 16 at pp
303 311 the word family  has been defined thus The father the mother and the children ordinarily constitute a family
The word family embraces more than a husband 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 children themselves all living together under one roof constituted a family pp
303 304 The word family in statute authorizing use of income for support of ward and family is not restricted to those individuals to whom ward owes a legal duty of 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 competent would make provision p 311 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 and their children whether actually living together or not p 343 Emphasis ours 676 Similarly in Webster s Third New International Dictionary the word family  is defined thus Family household including not only the servants but also the head of the household and all persons in it related to him by blood or marriage a group of persons of common ancestry p 821 Emphasis supplied In Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary New Edition 1972 the word Family  has been defined thus family the household or all those who live in one house as parents children servants parents and their children In Concise Oxford Dictionary Sixth Edition the same 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 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 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
More particularly in our country blood relations do not evaporate merely because a member of the family the father the brother or the son leaves his household and goes out for some time
Furthermore in our opinion the legislature has advisedly used the term that any member 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 actual presence of the tenant as on the fact that the members of the family actually live and reside in the tenanted premises
In fact it seems to us that clause d of section 141 of the Act is a special concession given to the landlord to obtain possession only where the tenanted premises have 677 been completely vacated by the tenant if he ceased to exercise any 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 the family of the tenant if while residing in the premises he dies and in order to resolve this anomaly the legislature immediately stepped in to amend certain provisions of the Act and defined the actual connotation of the term members of the family 
By virtue of Act 18 of 1976 the definition of Tenant was inserted so as to include various categories of persons
Sub 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 clause may be extracted thus 1 tenant means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is or but for a special contract would be payable and includes i a sub tenant ii any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy and iii in the event of the death of the person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy subject to the order of succession and conditions specified respectively in Explanation I and Explanation II to this clause such of the aforesaid person s a spouse b son or daughter or where there are both son and daughter both of them c parents d daughter in law being the widow of his predeceased son 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 not include   It would appear that parents were expressly included in sub clause iii
It has also been provided that apart from the heirs 678 specified in clauses a to d extracted above even those persons who had been ordinarily living in the premises with the tenant would be treated as members of the family
The statement of objects and reasons for this amendment may be extracted thus There has been a persistent demand for amendments to the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 with a view to conferring a right of tenancy on certain heirssuccessors of a deceased statutory tenant so that they may be protected from eviction by landlords and also for simplifying the procedure for eviction of tenants in case the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his personal occupation
Further Government decided on the 9th September 1975 that a person who owns his own house in his place of work should vacate the Government accommodation allotted to him before the 31st December 1975
Government considered that in the circumstances the Act required to be amended urgently
 If this was the intention of the legislature then clause d of section 141 of the Act could not be interpreted in a manner so as to defeat the very object of the Act
It is well settled that a beneficial provision must be meaningfully construed so as to advance the object of the Act and curing any lacuna or defect appearing in 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
vs Banarsi Dass1 even the learned Judge who decided that case had observed at page 472 that the term members of the family on the facts and circumstances of the case should not be given a narrow construction
In Gobind Dass  Ors
vs Kuldip Singh2 a Division Bench of Delhi High Court consisting of HR Khanna CJ as he then was and Prakash Narain J while recognising the necessity of giving a wide interpretation to the word family observed as follows I hold that in the section now under consideration the word family includes brothers and sisters of the deceased 679 living with her at the time of her death
I think that that meaning is required by the ordinary acceptation of the word in this connection and that the legislature had used the word family to introduce a flexible and wide term In Mrs G V Shukla vs Shri Prabhu Ram Sukhram Dass Ojha1 Mahajan J as he then was observed as follows 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
 Even as far back as 1930 Wright J in Price vs Gould  Ors 2 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 residing with the deceased at the time of her death
It has been laid down that the primary meaning of the word family is children but 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 in view of the surrounding circumstances   Thus in Snow vs Teed 1870 23 LT Rep 303 L Rep it was held that the word family could be extended beyond not merely children but even beyond the statutory next of kin In view however of the very clear and plain language of clause d of section 141 of the Act itself we do not want to burden this judgment by multiplying authorities
On a point of fact we might mention that the Rent Controller had given a clear finding that the mother younger brother Davinder Kumar Bangia and sister Vijay Lakshmi were undoubtedly residing in the disputed premises alongwith the main 680 tenant and continued to reside there even on the date when the action for ejectment was brought
In these circumstances we are 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 section 141 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 ejectment and restore the judgment of the Rent Controller
In the peculiar circumstances of the case there will be no order as to cost
HLC Appeal allowed


Summary:
A landlord is entitled to recover possession of the premises let for residential purpose under section 141d 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 lease in May 1961 and lived there with his parents sisters and a brother
He went to Canada in 1971 leaving behind in the house his mother and brother who continued to pay the rent
The landlord filed an application for ejectment of tenant under section 141d of the Delhi Rent Control Act in September 1972 contending that with the migration of the tenant to Canada his mother and brother could not be treated as members of the appellant s family
The application was dismissed by the Rent Controller who found that the 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 Controller was allowed 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 termed as a member of the family of the appellant
Allowing the appeal 671  HELD 1
a The Act affords intrinsic evidence to show that the non applicants were undoubtedly members of the family residing in the house and the migration of the main tenant to Canada would make no difference
674 H b The term family  has to be given not a restricted but a wider meaning
There are abundant authorities to show that the term family  should always be liberally and broadly construed so as to include near relations of the head of the family
A beneficial provision must be meaningfully construed so as to advance the object of the Act
E Price vs Gould and Ors 1930 Vol
143 Law Times 333 GV Shukla vs Shri Prabhu Ram Sukhram Dass Ojha 1963 PIR Vol
LXV 256 Govind Dass and Ors
vs Kuldip Singh AIR 1971 Delhi 151 and Hira Lal and Ors
vs Banarsi Dass 1979 1 RLR 466 referred to
c The Act has manifested its intention by virtue of a later amendment
The definition of tenant  inserted in section 21 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 specified therein even those persons who had been ordinarily living 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 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 actual presence of the tenant as on the fact that the members of the family actually live and reside in the tenanted premises
Clause d of section 141 of the Act is a special concession given to the landlord to obtain possession only where the tenanted premises have been completely vacated by the tenant
676 G H 677 A b The landlord had failed to prove the essential ingredients of clause d of section 141 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 had severed all his connections with his mother so that she became an absolute stranger to the family
Such an interpretation is against our national heritage and could never have been contemplated by the Act
680 B 675 B