T. U. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner of this revision application is a partnership firm and has taken on lease one godown which is known as Dehla situated at Nava Dhobivad Bhavnagar. The respondent is the landlord who is occupying a room on the first floor of the suit premises along with his family members. The room situated on the ground floor is used by the petitioner firm as a godown. But there is no evidence in the record of the case to show what stock-in-trade is being stored by the petitioner-firm in this godown. ( 2 ) THE opponent-landlord has filed this suit for eviction principally on the ground of his bona fide personal requirement in the court of Civil Judge S. D. at Bhavnagar where it was registered as Civil suit No. 10/67. The trial court held that the opponent landlord was in bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises as he cannot accommodate his family of 5 members consisting of himself his wife his married daughter her husband and his mother-in-law in one room which he is occupying on the first floor of the suit premises. He has also found that the balance of hardship is in favour of the landlord. He has accordingly decreed the opponents suit for eviction. ( 3 ) AGAINST this decree the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal to the District court where it was registered as Civil Appeal No. 201/67. Even the appellate court confirmed the decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the said appeal holding that the opponent landlord was requiring the suit premises to be taken in his personal use and that the balance of hardship was in favour of the landlord. Being aggrieved by this decision the tenant has preferred this revision application. ( 4 ) SHRI Vakharia who appeared on behalf of the petitioner has raised four contentions against the decision given by the lower appellate court. These contentions are as under:1 Requirement of the suit premises for the occupation of plaintiffs mother-in-law married daughter and her husband cannot be treated as plaintiffs requirement for his own occupation because these relatives of the plaintiff are neither dependant upon him nor can they be considered members of his family. These contentions are as under:1 Requirement of the suit premises for the occupation of plaintiffs mother-in-law married daughter and her husband cannot be treated as plaintiffs requirement for his own occupation because these relatives of the plaintiff are neither dependant upon him nor can they be considered members of his family. 2 The approach of both the lower courts in deciding the question of balance of hardship is wrong because both these courts have proceeded on the basis that the burden of proving that the balance of hardship is in his favour is on the tenant after once it is proved that the landlord requires the suit premises for his personal use. 3 The suit should fail because the defendant firm is sued not in the name of the firm nor through its partner but through its manager Hiralal Maganlal. 4 The suit notice ex. 18 is not valid because it is addressed to Shri Joshi the defendants advocate but there is nothing in evidence to show that he had at that time an authority to receive eviction notice on behalf of the defendant. THESE are the only four contentions which are required to be considered in this revision application. ( 5 ) SO far as the first contention is concerned the question which is involved is whether the requirement of suit premises for plaintiffs relatives who reside with him can be considered as plaintiffs own requirement for occupation by himself as contemplated by clause (g) of sec. 13 (1) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter shortly referred to as The Rent Act ). Shri Vakharia contended that the words for occupation by himself appearing in clause (g) suggest that the persons for accommodating whom a landlord requires the rented premises should either be the members of landlords own family or should be found financially or otherwise dependant upon him. He pointed out that the mother in law a married daughter and her husband can by no standards be considered as plaintiffs family members and they are also not plaintiffs dependants and therefore if the plaintiff wants the suit premises for accommodating them it cannot be said that he requires them for occupation by himself. ( 6 ) CLAUSE (g) of sec. 13 (1) of the Rent Act contemplates the requirement of the suit premises by the landlord for occupation by himself. ( 6 ) CLAUSE (g) of sec. 13 (1) of the Rent Act contemplates the requirement of the suit premises by the landlord for occupation by himself. Therefore the question is what is the exact scope and meaning of the words for occupation by himself. Obviously these words do not connote the occupation of the premises only by the landlord himself and none else. Occupation by a landlord includes the occupation of all those with whom the landlord usually resides including those who are treated by him as his family members and those whose presence in his household is found necessary While considering who are the members of a landlords family in order to decide the said landlords requirement under clause (g) the court should take into account not only the landlords wife and children but also his parents and other relatives and servants who usually reside with him and whom he is treating as members of his own family. Occupation of particular premises to accommodate all those with whom the landlord usually shares a common residence and kitchen and whom he treats as members of his family or household must be considered as the landlords own occupation because of the identity of his interest with those persons. It is therefore not a correct approach to say that only those persons who are financially or otherwise dependant on the landlord should be taken into account while considering the measure of his requirement for dependance of a person upon a landlord is only one of the factors which can be taken into account in this connection. In my opinion the real criterion is to consider whether looking to the social economical and physical needs of a landlord the residence of a particular person as a member of his household is justified or not. If the answer is in the affirmative the requirement of the premises for the occupation of such a person would amount to the occupation of the landlord himself. It is neither for the tenant nor for the court to decide whom the landlord should treat as a member of his household. His social needs and his physical requirements would be his main guiding factors which would determine the size of his household. It is neither for the tenant nor for the court to decide whom the landlord should treat as a member of his household. His social needs and his physical requirements would be his main guiding factors which would determine the size of his household. All these are subjective factors and so long as it is not found that they are put forward merely as an excuse for evicting a tenant the court would not be justified in prescribing who shall be a member of a landlords household. ( 7 ) IF we look to the problem from this aspect we find that plaintiffs mother in law daughter and son-in-law are the members of plaintiffs own family and the plaintiff himself is treating them as such. ( 8 ) SO far as his mother-in-law is concerned the evidence reveals that she was previously serving as a maid servant to one Police officer at Ahmedabad. However about three years before the suit was filed she met with an accident which resulted in fracture of some of the bones of one of her legs. She was therefore brought by the plaintiff to his own house and ever since then she is being looked after by him. It is an admitted position that she has no other issue except plaintiffs wife. Thus she is found to be completely dependant upon him. Her requirement of the suit premises would therefore be the requirement of the plaintiff himself. ( 9 ) SO far as the plaintiffs daughter and his son-in-law are concerned it is undoubtedly true that a daughter after her marriage leaves the family of her father and goes to the family of her husband. But this is merely a legal situation. The natural ties of blood are however not severed by such legal situations. There is therefore nothing unnatural in the plaintiffs desire to keep his daughter and son-in-law with him and treat them as members of his own family. Now the facts of the case show that the plaintiffs son-in-law had a quarrel with his brother. Therefore the plaintiff brought him to his house and accepted him as a member of his family. The plaintiff is also found to have procured some employment for him. The plaintiff himself is a petty servant employed as an oil man at Bhavnagar port office. He is getting a meagre salary of Rs. 130. 00per month. Therefore the plaintiff brought him to his house and accepted him as a member of his family. The plaintiff is also found to have procured some employment for him. The plaintiff himself is a petty servant employed as an oil man at Bhavnagar port office. He is getting a meagre salary of Rs. 130. 00per month. His son-in-law gets the salary of Rs. 105. 00 per month. Evidence also shows that the plaintiffs son-in-law hands over his salary to the plaintiff and expenditure of the whole family is met out of the joint earnings of both. All the members of the plaintiffs family take their dinner at one and the same kitchen. These facts show that the plaintiff has treated his daughter and his son-in-law as members of his own family. This is not done by him with a view to make a show for the purpose of evicting the petitioner-firm from the suit premises. In fact the evidence given by the plaintiff on this and other questions has gone totally unchallenged because the partners of the petitioner-firm have not thought it fit to step into the witness box to controvert the points made out by the plaintiff in the evidence offered by him. ( 10 ) IN my opinion therefore there is enough evidence in the record of the case to show that the plaintiffs mother-in-law his daughter and his son-in-law are all treated by him as members of his own family unit and if that is so the requirement of each one of them can be considered as the requirement of the plaintiff himself. I therefore confirm the findings of the learned appellate Judge on this point. ( 11 ) SHRI Vakharia has put reliance on a decision of Bombay High Court in Institute of Radio Technology v. Pandurang A. I. R. 1946 Bombay 212 and a Nagpur decision in Balkhadra v. Premchand A. I. R. 1953 Nagpur 144 in support of his contentions on this point. The Bombay decision says that the words his own occupation occuring in sec. 11 of the Rent Restriction Act (No. 16 of 1939) mean occupation of the landlord himself and all persons who are dependant on him. This decision does not say that these words cover only the landlord and his dependants and none else. The Bombay decision says that the words his own occupation occuring in sec. 11 of the Rent Restriction Act (No. 16 of 1939) mean occupation of the landlord himself and all persons who are dependant on him. This decision does not say that these words cover only the landlord and his dependants and none else. The Nagpur decision rather supports the view which 1 am taking as it holds that the need of widowed daughter and her children must be deemed to be the need of landlord himself. Thus these decisions are of no help to the petitioner. .