The tenant Rais Ahmad has preferred this petition aggrieved by the judgement and order of release of the shop occupied by him by the courts below.
The release application was filed by Smt. Kusum Sharma, the respondent landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that the shop in dispute is required by her genuinely for establishing her daughter-in-law Smt. Jyoti Sharma, the wife of younger son Pankaj Sharma to run a P.C.O. to augment the income of the family.
The release application P.A. Case No.35 of 2012 was allowed by the judgement and order dated 12.03.2014 and the appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed on 21.12.2015.
I have heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Salil Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent. Both of them agreed for the final disposal of the petition.
Sri Asthana, has argued that the release application under Section 21(1) of the Act can be filed by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family. The daughter-in-law of the landlady is not a member of her family. Therefore, she is not entitle to the release of the shop for the need of her daughter-in-law.
Sri Salil Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that no such plea was raised by the petitioner in the courts below. The release application has been filed by the landlady for establishing her daughter-in-law, who is part and parcel of her family being the wife of the son of the landlady.
Section 21(1)(a) of the Act provides that landlord may apply to the prescribed authority for the release of the tenanted accommodation, if it is bonafidely required by him for occupation by himself or any member of his family. Thus, the need for the building has to be that of landlord or any member of his family.
The word 'landlord' has been defined in Section 3(j) of the Act to mean a person to whom the rent is or would be payable. In view of the aforesaid definition of the landlord, even a person authorised to collect rent on behalf of the owner would be a landlord but it is settled that for the purposes of Section 21 of the Act, the mere collector of rent cannot be recognised as the landlord and that a person having some better rights than mere collecting of rent in the shape of ownership would be the landlord.
The word 'family' has been defined in Section 3(g) of the Act to mean a spouse, male lineal descendants such parents, grand-parents and any unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant, as may have been normally residing with him or her and includes, in relation to a landlord any female having a legal right of resident in the building.
In short, the family of the landlord comprises of himself his spouse male lineal descendants, grand-parents and unmarried, widowed, divorced, judicially separated daughter or daughter of the male lineal descendants normally residing with him including any other family having a right of resident in the building.
The above definition of the family does not cover the wife of the male lineal descendant.
It is only for the above reason that Sri Asthana, emphasis that the daughter-in-law is not part of the family of the landlord and the release application for her need is not maintainable.
It may not be out of context to mention here that the last clause of Section 3(g) of the Act which defines family to include any female having a legal right of residence in the building cannot be applied to cases where the release is sought of a commercial building or shop and not of residential building.
In Sardar Ishwar Singh Vs. Smt. Kamta Devi and others 1980 ARC 291 it has been held that the last clause of the definition of the family contain in Section 3(g) of the Act "including, in relation to a landlord, any female having a legal right of residence in that building" is not applicable in respect of non-residential building. Therefore, the daughter-in-law of the landlord even if having a legal right of resident with her would not be part of the family of the landlord for the purposes of the release of the shop in dispute under Section 21 of the Act.
Another decision of this court in Thakurdeen Vs. Smt. Hero Devi and others 1984 (2) ARC 117 holds that ordinarily daughter-in-law of the landlord is beyond the ambit Section 3(g) of the Act and would not be included in the family of the landlord.
The aforesaid decision however further lays down that the use of the words "occupation by the landlord or member of his family" in Section 21 of the Act means not strictly the landlord or the members of his family but also those persons who normally reside with him. Thus, the need of landlord's daughter-in-law, who normally lives with him can also be considered for the release of accommodation.
In other words, the daughter-in-law of the landlord though not expressly included within the definition of the family of the landlord but would be deemed to be part of his family if she is normally residing with him. Thus, daughter-in-law of the landlord in certain circumstances can be part of the family of the landlord for whose need an application under Section 21 of the Act can be filed by the landlord.
In Jagdish Singh Vs. Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dehradun and others 1978 ARC 330 while considering the provisions of Section 21 and Section 3(g) of the Act, the court held that a conjoint reading of the above provisions show that a person liable to be maintained by the landlord is a member of his family. A daughter-in-law is liable to be maintained by the father-in-law after the death of her husband and as such is very much part of the family of the father-in-law for whose need the release application is maintainable.
Even close relatives of the landlord like his nephew, nephew's wife and children living with him have been treated to be part of his family within the meaning of Section 3(g) of the Act in order to maintain a release application vide Keshav Narain Sharma Vs. Ist A.D.J. Lucknow and others 1981 ARC 627. In one another case Shayam Sunder Misra Vs. Vith A.D.J. and others 1989 (2) ARC 122 this court held that the need of the persons, who do not come within the definition of the family of the landlord can also be considered if it is found that they are living with the landlord for assisting him.
In Smt. Kanti Devi and others Vs. Ist A.D.J., Bahraich and others 1998 (1) ARC 288 it has been held that even a son of a married widowed daughter of the landlord living with him and supporting him is part of the family for whose need an application for release under Section 21 of the Act can be filed even though technically she may not fall within the definition of the family as per Section 3(g) of the Act.
The Apex Court in K.V. Muthu Vs. A. Ammal AIR 1997 S.C. 628 observed that the word 'family' is of great flexibility and is capable of different meanings. Even if a particular person is not strictly included in the definition of the family of the landlord as given under Section 3(g) of the Act still a release application for the need of such a person is maintainable in certain circumstances. In the said case the need for nephew of the landlord, who was brought by him as his son was held to be a need of the family member of the landlord and the release application in that regard was entertained.
The crux of the above decisions vis-a-vis the definition of family contained in Section 3(g) of the Act is that the word family is of very wide connotation and even if any person may not strictly fall within its ambit but still may be treated to be part of the family of the landlord in certain circumstances for the purposes of maintaining a release application under Section 21(1) of the Act.
In the instant case, the landlady has two sons Manoj Sharma and Pankaj Sharma both married. The landlady has set up the need for her daughter-in-law that is the wife of his younger son. The two sons are very much the family members of the landlady. Since her sons are members of her family it obviously includes their wives also with them. The wives of the sons cannot be separated from the said family. It is beyond imagination to conceive of an idea that the husband would be part of one family and his wife would be part of another family. They both have to go together to be included in one family and if the son is the family member of the landlady, his wife also acquires the same status.
In addition to the above, in the absence of any pleadings and evidence that the daughter-in-law of the landlady is living separately and not as part of her family or that the landlady is not enjoying the company of her daughter-in-law, it is but natural to treat her as a person of the family of the landlady.
Accordingly, an application for release for the need of the daughter-in-law of the landlady is held to be maintainable.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as no other point was raised and the matter stands concluded by the findings of fact on bona fide need and comparative hardship as are recorded concurrently by the courts below, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.09.2016 piyush