D. G. KARIA, J. ( 1 ) THE present petition is directed against the decision dated January 11, 1985 rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. 960/82 allowing the revision application of the respondent herein and thereby quashing the remand order dated January 25,1982 of the Deputy Collector, Petlad in Tenancy Appeal no. 136/81. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts are in narrow compass and not in dispute. The agricultural land bearing Survey No. 130 admeasuring OA-26 Gunthas of Block No. l71/p situated in village Vatav Taluka Petlad, District Kheda, was occupied and cultivated by the petitioners. The respondent had filed a civil suit, being Civil Suit No. 365/75 in the court of the Civil Judge (J. D.) at Petlad for possession of the said land. The petitioners raised a plea of tenancy in respect of the said land. The trial Court, therefore, made a reference under section 85a of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "the said Act") to the Mamlatdar to decide for issue regarding tenancy. In the inquiry under sec. 70 (b) of the said Act, the Mamlatdar, by his order dt August 16,1979, held that the petitioners were not the tenants of the land. The petitioners, therefore, preferred appeal before the Deputy Collector, who, by his judgment and order dated February 25, 1980, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar. On remand, the Mamlatdar again came to the conclusion by his order dated August 7,1981 that the petitioners were not the tenants. The petitioners, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Deputy collector, who by his order dated January 25, 1982 again remanded the matter to the mamlatdar. ( 3 ) THE respondent being aggrieved by the said decision of remand, preferred the aforesaid revision application No. TEN. B. A. 960/82. The Tribunal, invoking section 4 (1) of the said Act, held that the petitioners being cousin brothers of the respondent vithalbhai Motibhai, were members of the family and thus the petitioners cannot be deemed to be tenantsof the land in question. The Tribunal, therefore, quashed the remand order of the appellate authority. The Tribunal based its entire judgment on basis of the ratio laid down in case of Smt. Amthibhai Wdlo Jesangbhai Nathubhai vs. Patel shankerbhai Purshottamdas, reported in 24 (1) G. L. R. 170. The Tribunal, therefore, quashed the remand order of the appellate authority. The Tribunal based its entire judgment on basis of the ratio laid down in case of Smt. Amthibhai Wdlo Jesangbhai Nathubhai vs. Patel shankerbhai Purshottamdas, reported in 24 (1) G. L. R. 170. This Court, in that case, interpreting section 4 of the said Act, held that the respondent being uncle- in-law of the petitioner-landlady was not a tenant in view of the provisions of section 4 (1) of the said act It was further held that the respondent was related by marriage and therefore he must be held to be a member of the family and therefore beyond the purview of the benefit of deemed tenancy prescribed under section 4 of the said Act. The petitioners have challenged the validity and legality of the said order passed by the Tribunal in its revisional jurisdiction. ( 4 ) THE Appellate Authority has recorded in its judgment that the land in question belonged to Shanabhai Valabhai. Shanabhai Valabhai bequeathed the said land to chanchalben by way of will. Chanchalben inducted the petitioners as tenants in land in question. It is an admitted position that Chanchalben is the paternal aunt of the petitioners. ( 5 ) THE Mamlatdar and A. L. T. has, however, observed that the land in question was in the name of Mangalbhai Shivabhai. In his order at Annexure "a", the Mamlatdar has given the pedigree of Valabhai wherein no name as Mangalbhai appears. It may be that the name of Maganbhai has been mistakenly stated instead of Mangalbhai. Be it as it may, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the Mamlatdar did not examine the witnesses nor recorded the evidence as directed in para 5 of the earlier remand order. The appellate Authority held that the evidence of Manibhai Jethabhai and Ganibhai fakirmahmad Vora was necessary to be recorded in facts of the case, in as much as mohanbhai Motibhai was residing outside village Vatav and therefore had not cultivated the field at any point of time. The opponents had no objection if the matter was remanded. Accordingly, the Deputy Collector, by his order at Annexure "c" to the petition, ordered to remand the matter and sent it back to the Mamlatdar for giving opportunity to the parties and allowing them to adduce evidence and dispose it of in accordance with the law. The opponents had no objection if the matter was remanded. Accordingly, the Deputy Collector, by his order at Annexure "c" to the petition, ordered to remand the matter and sent it back to the Mamlatdar for giving opportunity to the parties and allowing them to adduce evidence and dispose it of in accordance with the law. The Tribunal, however, quashed the said order of remand holding that the matter was capable of being disposed of on the law point, i. e. the petitioners being relatives of vithalbhai Motibhai and Mohanbhai Motibhai, the petitioners cannot be tenants under section 4 (1) of the said Act. The material part of section 4 of the said Act reads as under:"4. A person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner and if such person is not- (a) a member of the owners family; or x x x x x x" ( 6 ) THE Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the petitioners are the cousin brothers of the respondent Vithalbhai Motibhai. However, on perusal of the record, Vithalbhai motibhai is not shown to be the owner of the said land. Chanchalben is shown to be the owner in respect of the land. Chanchalben, having been married, cannot be continued to be a member of the family of Shanabhai Amthabhai. In case of Smt. Amthibhai (supra), the dictionary meaning of the term "family" is considered and accordingly "family" is "a group of people related by blood or marriage, relatives". Thus, applying the ratio in case of Smt. Amthibhai (supra) Chanchalben cannot be said to be a member of family of shanabhai Amthabhai as a result of her marriage. Mr. A. J. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner has conceded to this fact According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the meaning of "family" is "the body of persons who live in one house or under one head, including parents, children, servants, etc. " The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, 1948 does not define "family". Mr. A. J. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner has conceded to this fact According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the meaning of "family" is "the body of persons who live in one house or under one head, including parents, children, servants, etc. " The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, 1948 does not define "family". However, section 2 (7-A) defines "joint family" as under: " (7a) "joint family" means an undivided Hindu family, and in the case of other persons, a group or unit the members of which are by custom joint in estate or residence;" in the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, section 2 (f) defines "family" as "in relation to a person, means the individual, the wife or husband, as the case may be, of such individual and their unmarried minor children". The explanation thereto provides that "for the purposes of this clause, "minor" means a person who has not completed his or her age of eighteen years. In the second volume of "words and Phrases Legally Defined", the meaning of "family" is as under "family" means, in relation to any person, any one or more of the following that is to say- (a) his wife, son, daughter, father, mother, and (b) any person, whether related to him or not, who is wholly or mainly dependent upon him. Explanation to Section 10 (5) of the Income Tax Act defines "family", in relation to an individual, as (i) the spouse and children of the individual; and (ii) the parents, brothers and sisters of the individual or any of them, wholly or mainly dependent on the individual;" websters New Dictionary defines "family" as under :- "family", a household, parents and their children, the descendants of one common progenitor". ( 7 ) THUS, from the definition and meaning of the term "family", it can be seen that every kith and kin of an individual may not be a member of his family. Mr. ( 7 ) THUS, from the definition and meaning of the term "family", it can be seen that every kith and kin of an individual may not be a member of his family. Mr. A. J. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner, placed reliance on the case of Sudalaimuthu Chettiar vs. Palaniyandavan, AIR 1966 SC 469 wherein a son-in-law has been regarded as a member of the family because the word "family" is not to be construed in a narrow sense or meaning so as to include only a member of a Hindu joint family because Madras cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 applied to all tenants irrespective of personal laws which governed them. A person, could, therefore, be properly regarded as being a member of his wifes family and not merely of his fathers family. Relying upon the supreme Court judgment, Mr. Patel submitted that the term "family" is to be construed widely and cousin brother of the person would be member of the family. The said judgment of the Supreme Court i. e. AIR 1966 SC 469 , is also relied upon in the aforesaid case of Amthibhai (supra) and wider meaning to the term "family" is attributed. In the case before the Supreme Court, narrow limited meaning of the term "family" was discussed in view of the object of Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, particularly by conferring the tenancy rights in favour of the person who was cultivating the land. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that the ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Amthibhai (supra) cannot be made applicable to the present case, in as much as there is nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioners, though cousin brothers of the respondent Vithalbhai Motibhai, is shown to be sharing a common estate or residence with the owners of the land. Besides, there is nothing on the record to show that the respondents Vithalbhai Motibhai was the owner in respect of the said land. ( 8 ) MR. Patel also relied uupon the judgment dated December 8, 1980, rendered in letters Patent Appeal No. 166 of 1978 with Letters Patent Appeal No. 167 of 1978 by the division Bench of this Court, consisting of BJ. Divan, C. J. and B. K. Mehta,j. ( as they then were ). ( 8 ) MR. Patel also relied uupon the judgment dated December 8, 1980, rendered in letters Patent Appeal No. 166 of 1978 with Letters Patent Appeal No. 167 of 1978 by the division Bench of this Court, consisting of BJ. Divan, C. J. and B. K. Mehta,j. ( as they then were ). In that case, the Division Bench construed section 4 of the said Act holding that section 4 of the Act provides for deemed tenants and it lays down that a person lawfally cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner and if such person is not a member of the owners family. Therefore, the question that was to be decided in that case was whether Bai Mani is one case and Prabhubhai in the other case could be said to be a member of the owners family. The division Bench relying upon the aforesaid case reported in AIR 1966 SC 469 , held that the word "family" cannot be construed in a narrow sense or meaning so as to include only a member of a Hindu joint family. The Act applies to all tenants irrespective of personal laws which govern them. In the facts of that case, the above named Bai Mani and Prabhubhai both were believed to be members of the owners family and the order was passed accordingly. Mr. Patel relying upon the said judgment in Letters Patent Appeals submitted that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the above decision in Letters Patent Appeals. Mr. Patel submitted that the present petitioners and respondent are related by blood and in view of the aforesaid judgments in Letters Patent appeals and Smt. Amthibhais case (supra), the petitioners cannot be deemed tenants of the lands in question. The submission of Mr. Patel cannot be accepted for the reason that in the present case there is nothing to show that the respondent, Vithalbhai Motibhai, was the owner of the land in as much as the field belonged to Shanabhai Amthabhai, who by way of a will, gave it to chanchalben. Therefore, assuming that the petitioners were the relatives of the respondent by blood, the respondent is not shown to be the owner of the land. Therefore, assuming that the petitioners were the relatives of the respondent by blood, the respondent is not shown to be the owner of the land. The word "family" has to be construed in consonance with the object of the said Act The object of the said Act was to avoid the neglect of the land-holder or dispute between the land-holder and his tenants and to see that the cultivation of the land is not seriously suffered or for the purpose of meeting the economic and social conditions of peasants and for ensuring the full efficient use of the land for agricultural purpose. In the facts of this case, the respondent is not shown to be the owner of the land in question and that Mohanbhai motibhai was residing outside the village Vatav and that he did not cultivate the land at any time. Therefore, keeping in view the object of the Act, it would be hazardous to give wider interpretation of the term "family" so as to include every kith and kin of the. individual as his family members. In the facts of this case, therefore, the petitioners, though cousin brothers of the respondent, cannot be said to be the family members of the respondent, who is not the owner of the land. The essential ingredient in the definition of the term "family" is the group or unit, the members of which are joint in estate or residence. There is no evidence or suggestion that the petitioners were either joint in estate or residence with the respondent. In my opinion, the Tribunal has lost sight of this important aspect in applying the ratio of the case of Smt. Amthibhai (supra), in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the facts of this case, the petitioners cannot be held to be family members of the respondents and cannot be deprived of the benefit of tenant under the said Act, unless the respondent is proved to be the owner of the land in question. ( 9 ) IN the result, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is quashed and that of the appellate Authority, i. e. the Deputy Collector, Petlad, in Tenancy Appeal No. 136/81 is restored. ( 9 ) IN the result, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is quashed and that of the appellate Authority, i. e. the Deputy Collector, Petlad, in Tenancy Appeal No. 136/81 is restored. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. to dispose it of in accordance with the law by giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence as directed by the appellate authority. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. .