JUDGMENT 1. - This is landlord's second appeal. He is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1990 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.4.1985 passed by the Additional Munsiff No. 2, Bharatpur whereby the his suit for eviction came to be dismissed. 2. The brief facts leading to the controversy in this second appeal are thus : 3. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') filed the suit for eviction with regard to the shop situated at Bharatpur, details of which were given in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The plaintiff averred that he purchased the subject shop on 7.9.1979 for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/- by a registered sale-deed. At the time of the purchase of the said shop, it was occupied by the respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') as tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 120/-. The plaintiff sought eviction of the suit shop from the defendants on the grounds of default, material alteration, nuisance and reasonable and bona fide necessity for his brother Banke Behari. 4. The defendants contested the plaintiff's suit by filing the written statement and denied that they were defaulter or that they had materially altered the premises or committed any nuisance. They denied that the premises were required by the plaintiff for his brother Banke Behari. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed diverse issues. Both the parties led evidence, oral as well as documentary. The trial Court after hearing the parties gave benefit of Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act as the default committed by the defendants was found to be the first default. The trial Court found no merit in the case of the plaintiff that the defendants altered the premises materially or that they committed any nuisance. With regard to issue No. 4 relating to the bona fide and reasonable necessity, the trial Court held that Banke Behari - plaintiff's brother for whom the premises are said to have been required reasonably and bonafidely cannot be said to he the member of the plaintiff's family. The trial Court also found that the defendants would suffer greater hardship if the decree for eviction was passed. The trial Court also fixed the standard rent @ Rs. 120/- per month. The trial Court also found that the defendants would suffer greater hardship if the decree for eviction was passed. The trial Court also fixed the standard rent @ Rs. 120/- per month. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.4.1985 passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred appeal before the District Judge, Bharatpur. During pendency of the appeal before the first appellate Court, both the parties made applications under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code The plaintiff by application made under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code sought to produce copy of the entry from the death register regarding his father's death and also for production of the registered sale-deed. On the other hand, the defendants in their application made under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code sought to produce the documents to show that the plaintiff's brother Banke Behari had started business of 'sarafa' at Mathura and that the plaintiff's 154 another brother Pooran Chand had constructed a building having four shops therein. 6. The appeal Court by his judgment and decree dated 29.10.1990 affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 7. On 12.8.1991 this second appeal was admitted on the following three substantial questions of law. (1) Whether the finding of the Court below that the brother of the family is not a family member can be said to be legally correct in view of the decisions of this Court and other Courts? (2) Whether the finding of the Court below on the question of reasonable and bona fide necessity can be said to be reasonable and legally correct when it has proceeded wholly on erroneous approach to the real question? (3) Whether the fixation of the standard rent of Rs. 100/- P.M. can be said to be legally correct when the matter does not fall under Section 6 of the Rent Control Act, 1950? 8. Mr. G.K. Garg, counsel for the landlord-appellant submitted that the question with regard to fixation of standard rent was not being pressed by him. Accordingly, the substantial question of law No. 3 is decided against the appellant being not pressed. 9. With regard to questions No. 1 and 2, that are inter-linked, the counsel would submit that the expression 'family' in Section 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act must be given wider meaning and that would include brother of the landlord. Accordingly, the substantial question of law No. 3 is decided against the appellant being not pressed. 9. With regard to questions No. 1 and 2, that are inter-linked, the counsel would submit that the expression 'family' in Section 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act must be given wider meaning and that would include brother of the landlord. He would submit that Banke Behari in his evidence has categorically stated that he was residing with the plaintiff and the evidence has also come on record that the plaintiff and his four brothers were carrying on joint business in one shop. According to him, therefore, the Courts below seriously erred in holding that the need of plaintiff's brother cannot be treated as plaintiff's need. Fie also submitted that the evidence on record amply establishes that the suit shop was required reasonably and bona fide by the plaintiff. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following decision : (i) Kailash Chand and another v. Dharam Dass, (2005) 5 SCC 375 ; (ii) Herald. Hamilton v. State of Rajasthan and another, RLR 1987(11) page 511 ; (iii) Raj Rani v. Ramanlal Agarzval, RLW 1972 page 609 ; (iv) K.V. Muthu v. Angamuthu Ammal,. AIR 1997 SC 628 ; (v) Dzvarkaprasad v. Niranjan and another, (2003) 4 SCC 549 ; (vi) Baldev Sahai Bangia v. R.C. Bhasin, (1982) 2 SCC 210 ; (vii) Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397 ; (viii) Abdul Hafiz Khan v. Jethu Rain, WLN (UC) 1981 page 401 ; and (ix) Shree Ram v. Radhaballabh and another, 2006(3) RLW 2334 . 10. I do not deem it necessary to deal with the aforesaid authorities cited by the counsel for the appellant individually. Suffice it to say that under Section 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, the landlord may seek eviction of the tenant from the premises where such premises are required reasonably and bona fide by the landlord for the use or occupation of himself or his family. The term 'family' obviously cannot be assigned a narrow meaning, rather it must be broadly construed. However, while doing so, it is required to be seen as to whether such relation of the landlord is dependent on him for the purpose of residence or for economic consideration. The term 'family' obviously cannot be assigned a narrow meaning, rather it must be broadly construed. However, while doing so, it is required to be seen as to whether such relation of the landlord is dependent on him for the purpose of residence or for economic consideration. Ordinarily brother a?id sister may not be included as member of the family of the landlord unless it is pleaded that such brother or sister is dependent on the landlord for the purposes of residence or they are living together and are joint in food and residence or for economic consideration. From such pleading and proof, the conclusion may be inevitable that such relation for whose need is pleaded, is the member of the family of the landlord. In this back-drop when the averments made in the plaint are seen, save and accept the statement made in paragraph 8 of the plaint, that suit premises are required by the plaintiff for his brother Banke Behari for starting a grocery business and that his brother was idle, there is no averment worth the name in the plaint that Banke Behari is the member of his family. As a matter of fact, in the plaint, the plaintiff has not at all given the details of his family and the members thereof. Not only that, even there is no averment that the plaintiff and his brothers constitute a joint Hindu family. In his deposition also, the plaintiff has not stated that Banke Behari was the member of his family or that he and his brothers constitute joint Hindu family. Plaintiff in his deposition has not stated that he and Banke Behari are living together and are joint in food and residence. He has also not stated that Banke Behari is dependent on him. there is bald statement of Banke Behari in his deposition that he is residing with the plaintiff but that bald statement is of no legal worth for want of any necessary pleading regarding the family of the landlord and the landlord's own deposition. Merely because plaintiff and his four brothers are carrying on business in one shop, no inference can be drawn that the plaintiff and his brothers constitute 'family' within the meaning of Section 13(1)(h), more so, there fifth brother has been carrying on business separately. Merely because plaintiff and his four brothers are carrying on business in one shop, no inference can be drawn that the plaintiff and his brothers constitute 'family' within the meaning of Section 13(1)(h), more so, there fifth brother has been carrying on business separately. By making an application under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code before the appellate Court, the plaintiff sought to introduce a new case that the suit shop was purchased by the plaintiff from his father's funds and thereby introducing a new case that he and his brothers were joint family. Obviously, since the documents which were sought to be produced by means of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code were founded on a case which was not set-up by the plaintiff in the plaint, the appeal Court rightly did not find any merit in the said application. Be that as it may, on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and the evidence led by the plaintiff, which is not sufficient to establish : (i) that the plaintiff and his brothers constitute a joint Hindu family; (ii) that Banke Behari is dependent on the plaintiff, and (iii) that they are living together and are joint in food and residence, the concurrent finding of the Courts below that Banlce Behari was not the member of the plaintiff's family cannot be faulted. 11. Even if I assume for the time being that Banke Behari is the member of the plaintiff's family and that he is entitled to seek eviction of the suit shop for the requirement of Banke Behari, the evidence on record does not establish that the suit premises are required reasonably and bona fide by the plaintiff. More so, before the first appellate Court, the defendants by means of application under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code sought to produce evidence and bring to the notice of the appeal Court that Banke Behari has shifted from Bharatpur to Mathura and he has been carrying on 'sarafa' business there; that one of his brother Pooran Chand who was carrying on business in the shop of utensils below Laxmanji Temple has dis-continued that business in that shop and that shop was also available for Banke Behari; and that, their brother Pooran Chand has constructed five shops at Kamla Road about 2-3 years back. The counsel for the appellant submitted that no opportunity was given to the plaintiff to rebut these facts and the evidence and, therefore, the appeal Court erred in taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects. From the record it is difficult to reach any firm conclusion as to whether any opportunity was given to the landlord to rebut the evidence led by the defendants by means of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code or not. I low ever, and more importantly in the memo of appeal, the appellant has not specifically denied any of these' aspects. It is not denied in the memo of appeal that Banke Behari was carrysing on 'sarafa' business at Mathura and also residing there. It is also not denied that one shop below Laxmanji temple was available with their brother Pooran Chand where he was carrying on utensils business and which Pooran Chand had discontinued or available with them. It is also not denied that their brother Pooran Chand had constructed five new shops at Kamla Road, Bharatpur about 2-3 years back. These facts and the evidence that has come on record at the appellate stage by means of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code demolishes the entire case set-up by the plaintiff that the suit shop was required reasonably and bona fide by the plaintiff for his brother Banke Behari. In these circumstances, therefore, the concurrent judgment of the Courts below in not accepting the plaintiff's case of reasonable and bona fide necessity cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity. 12. Second appeal is dismissed. Since the respondents are not represented at the time of arguments, I order no costs.Appeal dismissed. *******