JUDGMENT K. C. Agarwal, J. 1. THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Banda, dated 13-7-73 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 22 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 2. SMT. Kailash Devi, who is the wife of Mukat Behari Lal, is the owner of a house No. 329/1, Govind Ashram, Civil Lines, Banda. She got the said house by means of a registered gift deed dated August 8, 1947, executed by her mother SMT. Ram Piari and her brother Jairaj Behari Lal. Mukat Behari Lal had a son Mahabir Bali from his first wife. Mahabir Bali as well as his first wife died sometime back, Mahabir Bali, however, left behind his widow SMT. Madhuri Devi and a daughter Km. Reeta. Smt. Kailash Devi, respondent No. 3, filed an application before the Prescribed Authority for release of the accommodation on the ground that she needed the accommodation in dispute in possession of the petitioner for occupation by her daughter-in-law and grandfather. She alleged that these persons were previously living outside Banda but since were proposing to come to Banda, the premises in dispute was required for them. 3. THE application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the same was not maintainable as neither Smt. Madhuri Devi nor Km. Reeta could be treated as members of the family of Smt. Kailash Devi, respondent No. 3. 4. THE application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority and the appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed. Aggrieved by these two judgments, Ram Sanehi Lal, the tenant, filed the present writ petition. The first question that arises for decision in this writ petition is about the maintainability of the application under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of the Act. An application under this provision can be filed by a landlord for his or her need or for the need of his or her family member or members. In the instant case, the application filed by respondent no. 3 was neither allowed by the Prescribed Authority nor by the District Judge on the ground that the portion in dispute was not required by the respondent no. 3 for occupation by herself. It was allowed for the need of Smt. Madhuri Devi and Km. Reeta. The respondent no. In the instant case, the application filed by respondent no. 3 was neither allowed by the Prescribed Authority nor by the District Judge on the ground that the portion in dispute was not required by the respondent no. 3 for occupation by herself. It was allowed for the need of Smt. Madhuri Devi and Km. Reeta. The respondent no. 3 could file an application for the need of the aforesaid two ladies provided that they were the members of her family. 5. THE word 'family' has been defined in Section 3 (g) of the Act as under : " 'family' in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building, means his or her (i) Spouse, (ii) male lineal descendants, (iii) Such parents, grand parents and any unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant as may have been normally residing with him or her, and includes, in relation to a landlord, any female having a legal right of residence in that building.'' 6. IT would be seen from the facts stated above that Smt. Madhuri Devi was the widow of Mahabir Bali, the predeceased son of Mukat Behari Lal. Mahabir Bali was not thus the son born from Smt. Kailash Devi. Under Section 3 (g), a person can be a member of the family in relation to a landlord, to whom the property belongs, if he falls in one or the other category, Smt. Madhuri Devi could not come under clauses (i) (ii) or (iii). Her case was, however, attempted to be brought within the last sentence of the definition given in Section 3 (g). The same is, "and includes in relation to a landlord, any female having a legal right of residence in that building." This necessitates the examination of the question whether Smt. Madhuri Devi had a legal right of residence in the premises in question. I have already noted above that the building was received by Smt. Kailash Devi from her paternal relations. Under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act she would become the absolute owner of the property. Smt. Madhuri Devi did not have any right either under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act or Hindu Succession Act to claim a right of residence in the said premises. Under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act she would become the absolute owner of the property. Smt. Madhuri Devi did not have any right either under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act or Hindu Succession Act to claim a right of residence in the said premises. A daughter-in-law may have a right of residence in the house of her father-in-law under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. But, as in the instant case, the property did not belong to the father-in-law of Smt. Madhuri Devi but belonged to Smt. Kailash Devi, no such right could be claimed by Smt. Madhuri Devi. As such, the application filed by respondent no. 3 for the need of Smt. Madhuri Devi was not maintainable. 7. SRI G. P. Bhargava, counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that as the application was filed for the need of Km. Reeta as well, the order passed by the court below should not have been interfered with. An application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act could be filed for the need of Km. Reeta in case she was covered by the definition of the word 'family' in clause (g) of Section 3. The nearest provision upon which she could fall back was cl. (iii) of Sec. 3 (g). Under this clause, an unmarried daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant who is normally residing with a landlord is entitled to be treated as a member of the family of the landlord. It would be worthy of being noted that a daughter must be daughter of a male lineal descendant of the landlord to whom the building belongs. The expression 'lineal' has been construed to mean "male in a line of males". Such a male must be the offspring or born from the person who is claiming himself to be a male lineal descendant. In the instant case, it would be seen that Km. Reeta was the daughter of Mahabir Bali. Mahabir Bali, although was the son of Mukat Behari Lal but was not born from Smt. Kailash Devi. He was thus not the male lineal descendant of Smt. Krishna Dei, respondent No. 3. Accordingly, the application filed for the need of Km. Reeta could not be entertained. 8. IT was next contended that even a step son could be considered as a male lineal descendant and, as such, since Km. He was thus not the male lineal descendant of Smt. Krishna Dei, respondent No. 3. Accordingly, the application filed for the need of Km. Reeta could not be entertained. 8. IT was next contended that even a step son could be considered as a male lineal descendant and, as such, since Km. Reeta was the daughter of the step son of Smt. Krishna Dei, the application was maintainable under that provision. The submission has no substance. Under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, a son becomes entitled to inherit the property belonging to his mother. The word 'step son' has not been defined in the said Act. In the absence of any definition, the word should be given a natural meaning. That being so, a step son cannot be considered to be the son. Mahabir Bali thus being the step son was not the son of Smt. Krishna Dei. He could not fall in the line of male lineal descendant. Mulla in his book "Principles of Hindu Law" Fourteenth Edition, page 915, dealing with the claim of a step son observed : "A step son is not entitled to inherit to his step mother under this entry". It, therefore, appears to me that the application filed by respondent no. 3 even for the need of Km. Reeta was not maintainable. Even if it were conceded that Km. Reeta was a member of the family, since the application was filed for the composition need of Smt. Madhuri Devi and Km. Reeta and the needs of the two could not be separated, the application for their need was liable to be dismissed. 9. AS the application filed under Section 21 (1) (a) was not maintainable, it is not necessary for me to go into the question of applicability of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. That question could arise only when the application was found to be legally maintainable. 10. IN the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The judgments of the District Judge as well as that of the Prescribed Authority are quashed. Petition allowed.