K. V. MUTHU versus ANGAMUTHU AMMAL

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 188 · Decided: 17-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
K. V. MUTHU 
v. 
ANGAMUTHU AMMAL 
DECEMBER 17, 1996 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.) 
Tamil Nadu Building (Lease andRent Control) Act, 196fr-Ss.10(2)(1), 
10(3)(a)(iii), 2(6A~Application for eviction filed by the landlady on the 
C ground that the premises required for canying on the business of her deceased 
husband by her and the faster son-Objection that a faster son would not be 
a "member of family" of the landlord-Foster son brought up and reared by 
his uncle-Will created by the uncle-/ aster father bequeathing the business 
jointly to his wife (respondent) and his foster son and specifying that after his 
D wife's death the business would be canied on by his foster son-He is not 
only an heir under Mitakshara law but also under Hindu Succession 
Act--Held, Foster son can be a 'member of family' but it depends upon the 
facts and circumstances of a particular case-Hence, the foster son in present 
case is a member of the family and the application.for eviction stand main-
tainable under bonafide requirement of land-Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 
E 
Interpretation of Statute-Definition clause-Definition containing the 
teml' "means" is conclusive-But if the provision begins with "unless the context 
otherwise requires" then contextual meaning will prevail-Purposive construc-
tion to definition clause to be adopted and a word or a phrase to be construed 
F in the light of the context, scheme and object of the Act. 
The respondent filed an application for eviction against the appel-
lant from a non-residential building on the ground of personal need and 
wilful default. The said building was required for carrying on the lime-shell 
business of the respondent and her son A. A despite being a foster son 
G acquired the right to carry on the lime-stone business through the Will of 
the respondent's husband. The appellant contested the application that A 
was not a natural son of the respondent, consequently not a "member _of 
the family" within the meaning of Sec. 2(6-A) of the Act; the petition was 
not maintainable and as the appellant had not committed any wilful 
H default in the payment of rent, he was not liable to be evicted. 
188 
• 
KV. MUTIIU v. ANGAMUTIIU AMMAL 
189 
The Rent Controller on the observation that A was the son of the A 
respondent allowed her petition on the ground of bona fide need, though 
the appellant was not wilful defaulter. But the appellate authority reversed 
the decision merely on the ground that A being a foster son, he would not 
be a member of the family of the respondent.· 
/ 
In appeal, Division Bench of the High Court held that a "foster son" B 
'would be a member of the family within the meaning of the Sec. 2(6-A) of 
the Act and so the petition of the respondent was maintainable. Hence, this 
appeal. 
The appellant contended that "family" had to be given a meaning C 
which would be commonly understood by an ordinary man and it would 
include only a natural son, not a foster son. On the other hand, respondent 
contended that the word "family" was a word of great flexibility and had to 
. be interpreted in the context of the Act with the result that not only those 
who were related by blood or marriage, but others also would be included 
in it. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The definition of "family" in Sec. 2(6A) of the Tamil Nadu 
D 
Rent Control Act appears to be conclusive. But Sec. 2 of the Act opens with E 
the words "in this Act, unless the context othernise requires" which indicate 
that the definitions though indicated io be conclusive, but would not he 
treated to be conclusive, if it was otherwise required by the context. So the 
definition, like any other word in a statute has to be read in the light of 
the context, scheme and object of the Act and its interpretation should be 
such as would achieve the purpose which is sought to be served by the Act. F 
It is also established that the word "family" is word of greater flexibility 
and is capable of different meanings. [193-C-F; 194-D] 
Ram Pershad Singh v.Mukand La~, AIR (1952) Punj.189: 6DRL Punj 
251; Puspalata Debi v. Dinesh Chandra Bose, 85 Cal W 74; Syed Shah G 
Maida/ Islam v. Commer of Wakf, AIR (1943) Cal 635 : 47 cWN 315; 
Sukumar Guba v. Naresh Chander Ghosh, AIR (1968) Cal 4~; Msha Bibi v. 
Nabissa Sahib, AIR (1957) Mad 583; Ramubai v. Jiyaram \Sharha, AIR 
(1964)· Born 96 : 65 Born LR 647; Gobind Das v. Ku/dip Singh,, AIR (1971) 
Del 151: (1970) Ren CR 511;Abdul Hamid v. Nu

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