GOPINATH Vs. GIRDHARDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant tenant's second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 30th June. 1971 by the Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Appeal No 28 -A of 1971 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class I, Gwalior on 13 -11 -1970 in Civil Suit No. 121 A/68 whereby the suit of the plaintiff respondent for ejectment of the defendant was decreed.

(2.) THE short facts are these: The defendant was the tenant on the third storey of the plaintiff's house (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit accommodation'). The plaintiff after determining the defendant's tenancy, filed a suit for his ejectment allegedly on the ground under section 12 (1) (e) of the MP. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), alleging that the plaintiff bonafide required the suit accommodation for the residence of his widowed daughter -in -law and her two children, and there is no other reasonably suitable accommodation in his possession for that purpose. The defendant, inter -alia in his written statement, contended that from the averments made in the plaint the ground for ejectment does not fall under any of the provisions of section 12 (1) of the Act.

(3.) THE only question agitated before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant was that from the averments made in the plaint, no ground under section 12 (1) (e) of the Act is made out. His argument was that in section 2 (e) of the Act which defines 'member of the family' 'the widowed daughter -in -law' and 'grand children' do not find place in the list of persons specifically enumerated; they can be covered under the expression 'any other relation dependant on him' provided they are dependent on the landlord, His submission was that in the instant case, the widowed daughter -in -law and her Children, i.e., the grand children of the plaintiff do not fall in the definition as neither there is an averment in the plaint, nor there is evidence on record that they are dependent on plaintiff.