ANGAMUTHAMMAL Vs. K V MUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition conics up before us on a reference, by Mohan J. in view of the fact that the learned Judge doubted the correctness of the decision in Hathibudi Anandar v, Govindan, (1981) 1 Mad LJ (HQ 250, which held that a foster son of the landlord cannot claim the benefit of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (for short the Act), in view of the definition ~f 'member of his family' occurring in Section 2(6-A) of the Act. Mohan J. has expressed the opinion that The question whether a foster son can claim the benefit of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act will have to be- decided on the facts and circumstances of each case and that to lay as a rule of absolutism that a foster son will not fall under the definition would be stating the law too widely.

(2.) The question which arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the definition of 'member of his family' in relation to a landlord in Section 2(6-A) of the Act would take in his foster son.

(3.) The building with which we are concerned in this civil revision petition, which is a non-residential one. belonged to one Gannasambandam. The respondent took the building on lease in 1972, and was conducting the same shell business in the said building. The revision petitioner purchased the building from the prior owner in 1979 under Ex. A-2. The case of the revision petitioner is that her husband Thiruvannamalai Bakt1har\ and she treated and brought up one Arunachala 13:~kthar as their son and member of the family. The said Thiruvannamalai, husband of the petitioner, was carrying on lime shell business. He died leaving a Will dated 30th Nov. 1970. Under the said will he has clearly admitted that he had originally married one Trusayee Ammal and that the said 1rusayee Animal died without leaving any issues. thereafter, he married the petitioner and that both of them were bringing up Arunachala Bakthar who was none other than his brother's son. The lime shell business was being carried on ' through him. Under the will he has given a life estate in respect of his house scheduled in the will to ibis wife, the petitioner and the vested remainder to the children of Arunachala Baktar. He has further directed that the lime shell business s1bould be carried on by the petitioner and Arunachala Bakthar. After the lifetime of the petitioner, Arunachala Bakthar was to carry on the lime shell business. The petitioner has filed the petition for eviction on the ground that she requires The building for the Purpose of carrying on the lime shell business. for herself and for her son Arunachala Bakthar. She has also raised the contention that the respondent has committed willful default in the payment of rent. Among others, the respondent contended that Arunachala Bakthar is not* The natural son of the petitioner and consequently he will not be a son and therefore not a member of the family within the meaning of Section 2(6-A) of the Act. Therefore. she would not be entitled to maintain the petition. The Rent Controller found that the respondent hid not committed willful default in the payment of rent. The Rent Controller on the second issue whether the petitioner requires the building for the use of her son and herself found that Arunachala Bakthar is the son of deceased Tiruvannamalai Bakthar and the petitioner and therefore, a member of the family and hence the petitioner was entitled to maintain the petition for eviction. The Rent Controller also found that the petitioner had also pleaded that she required the building both for her business itself and that of her son and consequently in any event she would be entitled to an order of eviction. He also found that the requirement of the petitioner was bonafide. In the result, he ordered eviction.