BALDEV SAHAI BANGIA versus R.C. BHASIN

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 670 · Decided: 16-04-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
670 
.BALDBV SAHA! BANOIA 
v. 
R.C. BHASIN 
April 16, 1982 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-S. J4(J)(d)-Appllcotion for ejectment of 
tenant-Tenant ceasing to resid1 In premises. for 
~ver six months-Whan 
maintainable.' 
Words and phrase;,-'Members of faml/y'-Who are-S. T4(JJ(d) .of Delhi 
Rent Control Act, 1958. 
A landlord is entitled to recover possession of the premises Jet for 
residential purpose under s. 14(l)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, if he 
can show that neither the tenant nor any member of his family has been residing 
therein for a period of six months immediately before the date of the filing of 
the application. 
The appellant took the house in question on ·Jease in May, 1961 and 
E 
lived there with his parents, sisters and a brother. He went to Canada in 
1971~ 
leaving behind in. the house, his mother ~nd brother, who continued to pay the 
rent. 
F 
G 
H 
The landlord filed an application for ejectment of tenant under s. 14(1)(d) 
of the Delhi Rent Control Act in September. 1972 contending that with the 
migration of the tenant to Canada, his mother 11nd brother i:ould not be treated 
as members of the ap'pellant's family. Tbe application was dismissed by the Rent 
ControJler who found that t.be mother, brother and sister of the appellant were 
undoubtedly residing in the disputed premises along with the appellant and 
continued to reside there even on the date when the action for ejectment·was 
brought. 
The landlord's appeal against the order of the Rent ControJJer was 
a11owcd by the Rent Control Tribunal which ordered eviction of the family 
members of the appellant from the tenanted house. 
The appeal of the family members against the order of eviction was 
dismissed by the High Court on the ground that after the exit of the main tenant 
to Canada, neither the mother nor the brother or the sister could be legally 
termed as a member of the family of the appellant. 
AJ1owin$ the appeal, 
' -
' 
• 
B.S. BANGIA V. R.C. BHASIN 
611 
HELD : I. (a) The Act affords intrinsic evidence to show that the non-
applicants were undoubtedly members of the family residing in the house and 
the misration of the main tenant' to Canada would make no difference. [674 HJ 
(b) The term 'family' [has to be given not a restricted but · a wider 
m~aning. There are abundant authorities to show that the term 'family' should 
always ho liberally and broadly lccnstrued so as to include near relations of tho 
A 
head of the family. A beneficial provision must be meaningfully construed so 
B 
as to advance the object of tho Act. [676 F; 678 El 
Price v. Gould and Ors., [1930].Vol. 143 Law Times 333; G. V. Shukla v. 
Shri Prabhu Ram Sukhram Dass Ojha, [1963]' P.I.R. (Vol. LXV) 256; Govlnd 
. Dass and Ors. v. Ku/dip Singh, A.J.R.1971Delhi151 and Hira Lai and Ors. v. 
Banarsi Dass, [1979] I R.L.R. 466 referred to. 
(c) The Act has manifested its intention by virtue of a later amendment. 
Tho definition of 'tenant' inserted in 
s~ 2(1) of the Act by the Amending Act 
18 of 1976 expressly included 'parents' in sub-clause (iii) thereof and also 
indicated that .apart from the heirs 'of the tenant s.,Ccificd therein, even those 
persons who had been ordinarily 1ivina: in the premises with the tenant would 
be treated as members of the family. [675 B; 677 H; 678 A] 
2. (a) The legislature has advisedly provided that any member of the 
rami1y residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the date 
of the filing of the action would be treated as a tenant. 
The stress is not so 
much on the actual presence o( the tenant as on the fact that the members of the 
family actually live and reside in the tenanted premises. Clause (d) of s. 14(1) 
of the Act is a special concession given to the landlord to obtain possession· C\nly 
where the tenanted premises have been compl~tely vacated by the tenant. 
· 
[676 G-H; 677 A] 
(b) The landlord bad failed to prove the essential ingredients of clause (d) 
of s. 14(1) of the Act so as to entitle him to evict the members of the family of 
the main tenant. It could not be said that when the appellant migrated to 
Canada, he bad severed all his connections with his mother so that she became 
an absolute stranger to the family. Such an interpretation is against our 
national heritage and could never have been contemplated by the Act. 
(680 B; 675 B] 
·.i.._:. 
-~ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1533 o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.