PRAKASHMAL ALIAS PRAKASH CHANDRA Vs. REHMAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant � tenant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code aggrieved by the eviction decree passed by the first appellate court of learned Additional District Judge, Sumerpur in Appeal No.8/2010 � Prakashmal vs. LRs of Late Smt. Rehmat wife of Shri Kasam Ji, who is now represented after her death by Mohd. Salim s/o Shri Kasam Ji � her son.

(2.) THE learned trial court had decreed the suit No.42/1997 filed by the plaintiff � landlord Smt. Rehmat in respect of the suit premises, a shop situated at Sumerpur, which was initially given on rent to the defendant � tenant Prakashmal @ Rs.115/- per month and the eviction suit was filed, inter alia, on the ground of bonafide need of landlady's grand son Mohd. Raffique for opening an electronic equipment repair shop.

(3.) IN Smt. Rajinder Dhada vs. Jagdish Singh reported in 2002(8) Supreme Bound Reports � 422, dealing with a case arising under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that expression "family" would mean such relations of landlord as ordinarily live with him and are dependent upon him. In that case, the need was claimed by the appellant � landlady for two children left behind by her sister-in-law after her death and the father of the children was as ASI in Police. The High Court reversed the eviction order passed by the courts below and found that the two children to be neither dependent on nor were ordinarily living with landlady and in such circumstances, no fault could be found with the decision of the High Court.