1996 (12) TMI 395 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a "Foster Son" is a "member of family" within the meaning of Section 2(6A) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
2. Whether the eviction petition filed by the respondent on the grounds of personal need and wilful default is maintainable.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Definition of "Member of Family" u/s 2(6A)
- The primary issue was whether a "Foster Son" qualifies as a "member of family" under Section 2(6A) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
- The appellant contended that "Family" should be understood in its common meaning, including only natural sons.
- The respondent argued that the definition of "Family" in the Act is artificial and flexible, potentially including individuals not related by blood.
- Section 2(6A) defines "member of his family" as the landlord's spouse, son, daughter, grandchild, or dependent parent.
- The Court noted that definitions in statutes should be interpreted in context and should aid the purpose of the Act.
- The term "Family" is flexible and can include individuals not directly related by blood, as supported by various High Court rulings and the Supreme Court's observation in Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. The Nagpur Handloom Cloth Market Co. Ltd.
- The Court concluded that a "Foster Son" could be considered a member of the family if brought up with parental care and treated as a son.

Issue 2: Maintainability of the Eviction Petition
- The respondent filed an eviction petition u/s 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, citing personal need and wilful default.
- The Rent Controller found the petition maintainable for bona fide need but not for wilful default.
- The appellate authority reversed this decision, stating that a "Foster Son" is not a family member.
- The High Court's Division Bench overruled the appellate authority, affirming that a "Foster Son" is a family member under the Act.
- The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming that Arunachala Bakthar, the "Foster Son," was a family member and the eviction petition was maintainable for the bona fide need of the respondent and her "Foster Son."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that a "Foster Son" is a "member of family" within the meaning of Section 2(6A) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, and upheld the eviction petition filed by the respondent. The appeal was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 15,000.