- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ram Pershad Singh v. Mukand Lal
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns a rule directed against an appellate order by Mr. Tek Chand Vijh, Senior Subordinate Judge of Delhi, interpreting the term "family" under Section 9(1)(e) of the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Restriction Act. The issue arose because the plaintiff and his nephews neither form a joint Hindu family nor have a joint business, yet one nephew, Chandu Lal, lives with the plaintiff. The central question was whether the nephews—brother's sons of the plaintiff—fall within the meaning of "family" for the purposes of the Act.
Evidence showed that the plaintiff financially supported his nephews to start a confectionery business in Lahore, arranged their marriages, and that the nephews stayed with him when in Delhi. The plaintiff, approximately 80 years old and without wife or children, regarded his nephews as his heirs and intended beneficiaries. The matter proceeded to determine if the plaintiff was entitled to evict the defendant from the house for the benefit of his nephews.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether nephews (brother's sons) of the plaintiff can be included within the meaning of the word "family" as used in Section 9(1)(e) of the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Restriction Act.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to evict the tenant on the ground that the house is required for occupation by his nephews, considered as family members under the Act.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| BROCK v. WOLLAMS, (1949) 1 All E R 715 | Recognition that the word "family" is a popular, loose, and flexible expression, not a technical term; its scope depends on context and circumstances. | The court relied on this precedent to interpret "family" beyond strict definitions, allowing inclusion of nephews based on context. |
| PRICE v. GOULD, (1930) 143 L T 333 | Primary meaning of "family" is children, but can be extended beyond children and statutory next-of-kin depending on context. | Supported the flexible interpretation of "family" as inclusive of more distant relatives like nephews. |
| SNOW v. TEED, (1871) 23 L T 303 | The word "family" can extend beyond children to statutory next-of-kin and beyond. | Used to justify a broad construction of "family" in the present case. |
| JONES v. WHITEHILL, (1950) 1 All E R 71 | Consideration whether a niece living with and caring for the tenant’s family was a "member of the tenant's family" under Rent Act. | The court accepted that in ordinary conversation and context, extended relatives living with the family may be considered family members. |
| PUSPALATA DEBI v. DINESH CHANDRA, 85 Cal L J 74 | Determining "family" or "dependent" requires consideration of social order, habits, religious and socio-religious customs of the community. | Applied to assess the plaintiff's nephews as family members in light of their social and familial relationship and customs. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the meaning of "family" as used in Section 9(1)(e) of the Rent Restriction Act, relying heavily on English case law that treats "family" as a flexible, context-dependent term rather than a rigid technical one. The court cited authorities establishing that "family" primarily means children but can be extended to include other relatives such as brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews when circumstances warrant.
Applying these principles, the court considered the plaintiff's evidence that the nephews were his only heirs, financially supported by him, and one nephew actually residing with him. The accommodation was deemed insufficient for the plaintiff and his nephews, justifying the eviction of the tenant for their occupation. The court concluded that under the facts and relevant precedent, the nephews qualify as "family" within the meaning of the Act.
Thus, the appellate judge’s interpretation was upheld, emphasizing the flexible and wide meaning of "family" in this legal context.
Holding and Implications
The petition for revision is dismissed and the rule discharged.
The court upheld the finding that nephews are included within the meaning of "family" for the purposes of the Rent Restriction Act, entitling the plaintiff to evict the tenant for their occupation. The plaintiff was awarded costs in this Court and in the Courts below. This decision directly affects the parties by confirming the plaintiff's right to possession for his nephews but does not establish a new legal precedent beyond affirming the flexible interpretation of "family" under the Act.
1. This is a rule directed against the appellate order of Mr. Tek Chand Vijh, Senior Subordinate Judge of Delhi, holding that nephews were included within the meaning of the word "family" as used in Section 9 (1) (e) of the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Restriction Act hereinafter called the Act. The findings of the learned Judge are that the plaintiff and his nephews neither form a joint Hindu family nor have a joint business, but that Chandu Lal is living with the plaintiff and the question to be determined is whether both Chandu Lal and Nandu Lal, who are the nephews (brother's sons) of one plaintiff, are to be included in the word "family" as used in the Act.
2. The evidence of Chandu Lal as P. W. 6 is that Nandu Lal and Chandu Lal brothers were carrying on business as confectioners in Lahore. The plaintiff had given them the money to start this business. He brought about their marriages and whenever they used to come to Delhi they used to stay with the plaintiff and Chandu Lal is now living with the plaintiff Mokand Lal. He has also stated that the plaintiff is about 80 years old and has got no wife or any child. Nandu Lal and Chandu Lal are the heirs of the plaintiff, and from this evidence it is quite clear that they are the only persons who are the heirs of the plaintiff and they are the persons whom the plaintiff would like to benefit.
3. The question for determination is whether under these circumstances the plaintiff should get the advantage of getting the house in possession of the defendant vacated. The word "family" has been the subject-matter of decision in some of the English cases. In an English judgment 'BROCK v. WOLLAMS', (1949) 1 All E R 715, Bucknill, L. J., quoted with approval the observations of Wright, J., in 'PRICE v. GOULD', (1930) 143 L T 333, where it was observed:
"It has been said in a number of equity cases, relating principally to wills or to settlementa under powers of appointment, that the word "family" is a popular, loose, and flexible expression, and not a technical term. It has been laid down that the primary meaning of the word "family" is children, but that primary meaning is clearly susceptible of wider-interpretation, because the cases decide that the exact scope of the word must depend on the context and the other provisions of the will or deed in view of the surrounding circumstances. Thus, in 'SNOW v. TEED', (1871) 23 L T 303, it was held that the word "family" could be extended beyond not merely children but even beyond the statutory next-of-kin."
Wright J. went on to say:
"I hold that in the section now under consideration the word "family" includes brothers and sisters of the deceased living with her at the time of her death. I think that that meaning is required by the ordinary acceptation of the word in this connection, and that the legislature has used the word "family" to introduce a flexible and wide terms."
4. In a later English case JONES v. WHITEHILL', (1950) 1 All E R 71, where the question for determination was whether a niece of the tenant's wife who was living in the dwelling house to which the Rent Act applied, and nursed him and his wife until their deaths was included in the words 'member of the tenant's family'. Sir Raymond Evershed, M. R., quoted the observations of Wright, J., as given in the judgment of Bucknill, L. J., In the cases that I have quoted above and said: "I am not suggesting necessarily that all nephews and nieces by marriage should be regarded as members of the tenant's family, but be it observed here that the defendant, a niece of Mrs. Bailey.....
(His Lordship considered the facts of that case).
"On those facts I think that, if it were asked in an ordinary conversation. "Was the defendant a member of Mr. Bailey's family? an affirmative answer would be given."
With this judgment Cohen and Asquith, L. JJ., agreed.
5. In 'PUSPALATA DEBI v. DINESH CHANDRA', 85 Cal L J 74, it was held
"In determining what is family or a dependent or a person essential and necessary for occupation, it is not only permissible but is proper and desirable for the Court to bear in mind the context of social order, the habits and ideas of living and the religious and socio-religious custom of the community to which the individual concerned belongs and then come to a conclusion on the facts of each case."
In this particular case the two nephews for whom the landlord wishes to get this house are his only heirs. He set them up in business in Lahore and also got them married, and one of them is actually living with the plaintiff and the accommodation, it is submitted, on the evidence of Chandu Lal is insufficient for the purposes of the landlord and his nephews, which evidence I am prepared to accept as indeed the learned Senior Subordinate Judge accepted. In these circumstances my opinion is that the nephews are members of the family of the landlord and he is entitled to evict the tenant for the purposes of these nephews.
6. Taking the words of the learned Master of the Rolls and considering the circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the learned Senior Subordinate Judge rightly held that the nephews in this case should be included in the word "family" as used in the Act. I, therefore, dismiss this petition for revision and discharge the rule. The opposite party will have his costs in this Court and in the Courts below.
Alert