(1.) Whether a "Foster Son" would be a "member of family" in relation to a landlord within the meaning of Section 2 (6A) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short, the Act) is the question involved in this appeal which is directed against the Judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court laying down that a "Foster Son" would, under a given set of facts, be a member of the landlords family and thus overruled the Single Judge decision in Hathibudi Anandar v. Govindan, (1981) 1 Madras Law Journal 250.
(2.) The appellant is the tenant in respect of a non-residential building since 1972 when it was owned by one Ghanasambandam who on 10-5-1979 transferred the said building in favour of the respondent.
(3.) An application under Section 10(2) (i) and 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was filed by the respondent for the eviction of the appellant on the ground inter alia of personal need and wilful default. It was pointed out by the respondent in her application that her husband Thiruvannamalai Bakthar who carried on the lime-shell business had, together with the respondent, brought up one Arunachala Bakthar as their son and member of their family. Thiruvannamalai Bakthar died leaving behind a will dated 30th November, 1970 in which it was specified that Arunachala Bakthar who was the son of his real brother was brought up by him and it was through him that he was carrying on the lime-shell business. The will created a life estate in favour of the respondent in respect of the residential house and the remainder was vested in the children of Arunachal Bakthar. The will father recited that the lime-shell business would be carried on by the respondent and Arunachala Bakthar but after the death of the respondent, Arunachala Bakthar alone would carry on the business. The premises in occupation of the appellant were said to be required for carrying on the lime-shell business for herself and for her son Arunachala Bakthar.