PURUSHOTTAM DAS GUPTA Vs. BALARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER to be member of the family within section 2 (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, it is necessary to live jointly with the landlord and 'joint living' means actual living or residing continuously with landlord?

(2.) WHETHER separated son or other member as mentioned under Sec. 2 (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, are members of the family for the purpose of section 2 (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 -

(3.) A bare reading of the definition of 'member of the family' shows that it embraces within its ken three categories of persons - (1) the spouse, son, unmarried daughter, father, grandfather, mother, grandmother, brother, unmarried sister, paternal uncle, paternal uncle's wife or widow; (2) or brother's son, or unmarried daughter living jointly with him; and (3) or any other relation dependent on him. 5. Punch is on the words 'living jointly with'. The question posed is whether these words qualify only the category -two relations or both category -one and category -two relations. The answer would solve the problem posed. 6. It is well settled that if the language of the statute is plain and clearly spells out the legislative intent behind, effect has to be given to the language as used. A bare reading of the provision clearly suggests that the legislative intent is that the words 'living jointly with' are intended to qualify only brother's son or unmarried daughter, the words just preceding. They do not extend any beyond. The reason is not far to seek. The first category of relations are even otherwise the members of the family and in the Indian society those relations can ordinarily be expected to be living with the landlord. A brother may ordinarily live with the landlord, but not the brother's son or unmarried daughter ordinarily. Thus, in between the brother and his son or unmarried daughter, the Legislature' intended to draw a dividing line by resorting to 'living in jointness'. To put in other words, while the own son or unmarried daughter of the landlord would be a member of the family whether or not he or she was living jointly with him, the brother's son or unmarried daughter, would not be the member of the family unless he or she was living jointly with the landlord. 7. In Kewal Singh v. Lajwanti [AIR 1980 SC 161], Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, referring to the cases of ejectment based on bona -fide personal need of the landlord in rent control legislation, have impressed upon the necessity of meaningfully construing the provisions so as to make the relief granted to the landlord real and practical, it being a limited relief available to the landlords amidst a number of facilities to the tenants. To quote Their Lordships - -