JUDGEMNT 1 By way of the present petition under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates, 1947 ( the Rent Act for short), the landlord/plaintiff/respondent in Appeal, has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.12.1998, passed by the learned District Judge, Bhavnagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No.116 of 1987, by which the judgment and decree of eviction dated 17.8.1987, passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD), Gadhada, in Regular Civil Suit No. 11 of 1982, is quashed and set aside. 2 The brief facts arising from the record are as under: That the present petitioners, who are Trustees of a public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 11 of 1982, in the court of Civil Judge (JD), Gadhada, and prayed for a decree of eviction against the present respondent on the ground that the tenant lady had sublet the premises and, therefore, the Trust was entitled for possession of the suit premises under Section 13(1)(e) of the Rent Act. It was alleged in the petition that the defendant lady was the tenant of the suit premises, which was rented to her for carrying on the business of hotel, but she had handed over the possession of the same to one Babubhai Ukabhai and part of the property to one Bharatkumar Mansuklal, and were carrying on the business of grocery in the said premises and she was earning profit by collecting money from them. 2.1 The suit was opposed by the tenant lady by filing a written statement. It was the case of the tenant that she had married to one Ukabhai Devkaranbhai, who happens to be the father of said Babubhai and grandfather of Bharatkumar Mansuklal. It was her case that she had married to said Ukabhai Devkaranbhai before 50 years of filing of the suit and was residing with the said Ukabhai Devkaranbhai and his first wife Samratben, and other family members including Babubhai and grandson Bharatkumar Mansuklal. It was her further case that her late husband Ukabhai Devkaranbhai was carrying on the business of hotel in the suit premises and after his death, the Trust had permitted her to carry on the business in the said premises in her name and was paying the rent to the Trust. It was her further case that her late husband Ukabhai Devkaranbhai was carrying on the business of hotel in the suit premises and after his death, the Trust had permitted her to carry on the business in the said premises in her name and was paying the rent to the Trust. It was her case that the sons of late Ukabhai Devkaranbhai i.e. Babubhai and grandson Bharatkumar Mansukhlal along with his family members were carrying on the business in the suit premises and she was maintained by them from the income received from the said business. It was her further case that she had become old and therefore she had permitted Babubhai and Bharatkumar to carry on their business and the Trust was aware about the same. Since these persons are her family members and, therefore, they are tenants within the meaning of Section 5(11)(c)(ii) of the Rent Act and, therefore, decree of eviction cannot be passed against her. 3 After framing the issues at Exhibit-10 and after considering the depositions of both the sides, the Trial Court allowed the suit and passed a decree of eviction on the ground that in absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the marriage between Ukabhai Devkaranbhai and the tenant lady Jadiben, the persons, who were carrying on business in the suit premises, are not the family members and, therefore, the the tenant had committed beach of Section 13(1)(e) of the Rent Act and the landlord is entitled for the possession of the suit premises. 4 The said judgment and decree dated 17.8.1987 passed by the Civil Judge (JD), Gadhada, was challenged by the tenant Jadiben Jivabhai Koli, by filing a Regular Civil Appeal No. 116 of 1987 before the learned District Judge at Bhavnagar. During the pendency of the suit, said Jadiben Jivabhai Koli expired and, therefore, Babubhai Ukabhai submitted an application at Exhibit-9 and requested that he, being the legal heir of Jadiben, shall be joined as legal heir of said deceased Jadiben and be permitted to continue with the appeal. The said application Exhibit-9 was allowed by the learned Assistant Judge, Bhavnagar on 24.6.1994 and Babubhai Ukabhai was joined as appellant being the legal heir of deceased Jadiben. The appellate court considered the entire record and proceedings of the case and raised several points for determination. The said application Exhibit-9 was allowed by the learned Assistant Judge, Bhavnagar on 24.6.1994 and Babubhai Ukabhai was joined as appellant being the legal heir of deceased Jadiben. The appellate court considered the entire record and proceedings of the case and raised several points for determination. The learned appellate judge accepted the say of the original defendant tenant that Babubhai being son of Ukabhai and since Jadiben had married with late Ukabhai Devkaranbhai, son of her husband - Babubhai Ukabai, though, from his first wife Samratben, is required to be treated as family member and, therefore, the eviction decree passed by the Trial Court was quashed and set aside by the appellate court by judgment and order dated 16.12.1998. Hence, the present Revision Application by the landlord Trust. 5 Mr. P.C. Kavina, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. H.M. Parikh, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, has vehemently argued that the appellate court has erred in accepting Babubhai as a family member of the tenant though there is no proof that Jadiben was married to said Ukabhai Devkaranbhai, who is father of Babubhai and grandfather of Bharatkumar Mansukhbhai. He further submitted that there is no blood relation between the tenant lady and Babubhai and, therefore, he is not to be treated as tenant as provided under Section 5(11)(c)(ii) of the Rent Act. Mr. Kavina further argued that the order passed below Exhibit-9 by appellate court is erroneous and is required to be quashed and set aside, though, the Trust had not challenged the same when the same was passed in the year 1994. He submitted that the appellate court erred in appreciating the deposition of tenant Jadiben and has not properly considered the cross-examination of the lady, in which, she has admitted that she had no proof when she got married to Ukabhai and, therefore, the appellate court has committed error of law while considering Babubhai and Bharatkumar as family members of the lady. 6 On the other hand, Mr. P.A. Jadeja, learned Advocate appearing with Mr. Jigar M. Patel, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent has submitted that the appellate court has rightly appreciated the depositions of all witnesses in absence of any other documentary evidence produced by the landlord - Trust. He submitted that the Trust has not produced any rent note. 6 On the other hand, Mr. P.A. Jadeja, learned Advocate appearing with Mr. Jigar M. Patel, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent has submitted that the appellate court has rightly appreciated the depositions of all witnesses in absence of any other documentary evidence produced by the landlord - Trust. He submitted that the Trust has not produced any rent note. He further submitted that Jadiben tenant, being a widow lady, and who had married number of years prior to the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the appellate court was right in coming to the conclusion that the tenant lady was the wife of deceased Ukabhai since the registration of marriage was not compulsory at that time. He further submitted that in absence of any evidence produced by the landlord Trust, the appellate court was right in coming to the conclusion that the tenant - lady was not profiteering from the rented premises by subletting to her husband s son and grandson from his first marriage. It was rightly held by the appellate court that the possession of the property has not been handed over to some third person. He further submitted that even if it is assumed that there was no evidence when the tenant lady got married to Ukabhai, but when she has categorically deposed that she was residing with Ukabhai along with his first wife Samratben and their children and which has been accepted by the son of deceased Ukabhai, third party mere denial to the same, would not make the case stronger as alleged by that party. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Kamal Chintanman Mithari & Ors. vs. Ganpatrao Ramchandra Powar, as reported in 1977 (Bom)163 and submitted that in the said case it has been held that even if the mistress of a tenant, who was living with children at the time of the death of the tenant, she is treated as a member of the tenant. vs. Ganpatrao Ramchandra Powar, as reported in 1977 (Bom)163 and submitted that in the said case it has been held that even if the mistress of a tenant, who was living with children at the time of the death of the tenant, she is treated as a member of the tenant. In the present case, as per his submission, even if it is believed that Babubhai and other persons are not the children of the tenant lady and Ukabhai, but since all the family members were residing together and carrying on business from the suit premises from the time when Ukabhai was alive, therefore also, there is no question of subletting the property as defined under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section-15 of the Rent Act. He submitted that the persons are carrying on business are family members of the tenant and, therefore, the landlord is not entitled for any decree of eviction. 7 I have heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Now, the moot question in the present Revision Application is whether son and grandson of the tenant s husband and his first wife, are part of the family or not, as far as the Bombay Rent Act is concerned. 7.1 The word family is nowhere defined under the Rent Act. Therefore, the Court has to decide that a particular person can be considered as a member of the family of a tenant or not. In the case of Taraben D/o Shivshanker Nathji Pandya Through P.O.A. Kaushikbhai M.Bhatt vs. Manubhai Harinarayan Pandya & Ors. as reported in 2012 (2) GLR 1482 , the Division Bench of this Court (to which A.J. Desai,J., was a party), the word family is examined in detail with regard to the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 is concerned. The word family is also not defined in the said Act. The Division Bench has, after considering several judgments and different dictionary meaning, considered that if by a statue the word of family is not defined, it must be decided on the facts of each case. As per the definition of Black s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, word family is defined as (1) a group of persons connected by blood, by affinity, or by law, esp. As per the definition of Black s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, word family is defined as (1) a group of persons connected by blood, by affinity, or by law, esp. within two or three generations; (2) a group consisting of parents and their children, and (3) a group of persons who live together and have a shared commitment to a domestic relationship. 7.2 As far as a person is a member of the family or not with regard to the Rent Act is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Kailashbhai ShukaramTiwari vs. Jostna Laxmidas Pujara & Anr., as reported in (2006) 1 SCC 524 , has held that it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In para-12 it has been observed as under: 12.................It is futile to attempt to lay down a straitjacket formula as to who can be considered to be the member of the family of the tenant, particularly in absence of definition of family in the Act. Having regard to relevant considerations, the question must be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. The High Court has relied upon some decisions of this Court wherein the question raised was whether the brother was a member of the family, or a case where the tenant had to go to a foreign country on business, leaving behind his parents and family members, including brothers and sisters. In such a factual situation, this Court held that the persons who occupied the premises were the members of the family of the tenant. 7.3 In the case of Raghavan vs. Kelappan, as reported at 2006 (3) JCR,499, the Larger Bench of the Kerala High Court, while dealing with the word family under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, by relying upon several decisions of the said High Court, has held in para-5 as under: 5 Learned Single Judge of this Court in Muhammad and Ors. v. Sinnamalu Amma, 1977 KLT 795 , held that the expression family which is undefined by the Act is elastic and its ambit has to be determined in all the circumstances of the case, having regard to the habits, ideas and socio-economic milieu of the parties. Same view has been taken by a Bench of this Court in Balakrishna Menon vs. District Judge, 1994 (1) KLT 102 . Same view has been taken by a Bench of this Court in Balakrishna Menon vs. District Judge, 1994 (1) KLT 102 . Another Division Bench of this Court followed the above decision in Krishnan Thampi v. Sankaradas, 2002 (1) KLT 930 . Later, a Bench of this Court in Kammancheri Janaki and Ors. v. Karattu Govindan Nair and Ors., to which one of us (Radhakrishnan, J.) was a party, held as follows: in the socio condition of our country, the expression family has to be given a wider meaning which is elastic and that it has to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case and the status of the dependent in the family. Later another Division Bench of this Court in Ismail v. Kesavan, held as follows: Dependency does not mean financial dependency, but dependency for the building which belongs to the landlord. In our society, generally son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother, sister, etc are members of the family and would in many cases depend upon the head of the family. The Kerala Rent Control Act does not define the term family . But what constitutes the family in a society depends upon ancestry, birth, blood relations, common lineage, line of descent and the habits and ideas of persons constituting the family. In short its ambit has to be determined with regard to the socio-economic milieu of the parties. In Prathpan vs. Rama Warner, a Bench of this Court while construing the word family took the view that there may also be cases where sisters, brothers, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law be treated as members of the family and it all depends upon the family relations and family bonds. A domestic servant who has served the family throughout his life could also in a given situation be treated as member of the family. Personal laws of the parties as such may not guide us to find out the meaning of the expression family . The expression family has been denied in the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary to mean all those who live in one house (as parents, children, servants), the descendants of one common progenitor etc. The word family may also be taken to mean collective body of persons who live in one house under one head or manager and includes within its fold household, children and servants as the case may be. The word family may also be taken to mean collective body of persons who live in one house under one head or manager and includes within its fold household, children and servants as the case may be. Osborn s Concise Law Dictionary defines the word family so as to include all those persons who were subject to the potestas of the same individual, whether his children, grand children, etc. or unconnected in blood, eg. slaves. Further all descendants of the same ancestors, all persons connected by agnation, slaves of the pater-family or property of a pater-family Various High Courts have also given a wider meaning to the expression family as well as the expression dependent . In B.Balaiah v. Chandoor Lachaiah, the Court held that it is not only permissible but it is proper and desirable for the Court to bear in mind the context of the social order, the habits and ideas of living and the individual concerned belongs. The Delhi High Court in Govind Dass vs. Kuldip Singh, held that the word family must be construed with reference to habits and ideas of the persons constituting the particular society and the religious and the socio custom of the community to which such persons belong. The Bombay High Court in Kamal Chintaman Mithari vs. Ganpatrao Ramachandra Powar, held that the mistress of a tenant who was living with him along with their children in the disputed premises at the time of his death must be regarded as a member of his family for the purpose of Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act. Similar view is taken by other High Courts, namely, in V.M. Deshmukh v.K.M. Kothari, AIR 1951 Ng. 51, Firm Rajnilal & Co. v. Vithal Pandurang, AIR 1953, 144; Seshanarayana Rao v. Venkatesa Rao, AIR 1953 Mad. 531, Kolandavel Chettiar v. Koolayana Chettiar, 1961 Mad.L.J. 184, Runju v. Ahmed Unnisa Begum, 1963 (1) Mad. LJ 970, Bindhubusan v. Commissioner, Patna Division., etc. Reference be made to a few decisions of English Courts. In Smith v. Penny, (1946) 2 All.E.R. 672, it was held that children of landlord s friend and his wife to look after the children are considered to be member of the family. In Jones v. Whitehil 950 (1) All. LJ 970, Bindhubusan v. Commissioner, Patna Division., etc. Reference be made to a few decisions of English Courts. In Smith v. Penny, (1946) 2 All.E.R. 672, it was held that children of landlord s friend and his wife to look after the children are considered to be member of the family. In Jones v. Whitehil 950 (1) All. E.R. 71, it was held that niece of the tenant s wife who had nursed the tenant and his wife is also a member of the family. 8 Now, in the background of this propositions of law, I would like to discuss the case on hand. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is a public charitable Trust and being a responsible entity, is required to keep all the necessary and relevant documents since the Trust is answerable to the authority under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act. It is an admitted position that the Trust has not produced any rent note which would suggest that under what circumstances and on what conditions the suit premises was rented to the lady for running a hotel business in the same. One of the Trustees who has been examined at Exhibit-29, has only alleged that the lady had collected huge amount from Babubhai and Bharatkumar, who happen to be son and grandson of Ukabhai. In support of his deposition, nothing has been produced. He has admitted that prior to deposing before the Court 15.4.1984, the suit property was got repaired but without any documentary support the same. It appears from the cross-examination that in 1967-68 also the suit for possession of the suit premises was filed, but he is not aware about the reasons for filing the suit. The plaintiff Trust has not examined any other witnesses nor has produced any material evidence on record. 9 Now considering the deposition of tenant lady Jadiben Jivabhai, who was examined at Exhibit-50, it appears that, when he was examined before the court on 21.6.1987 she was aged about 75 years. She has categorically stated that she had married to Ukabhai Devkaranbhai before number of years and her husband Ukabhai Devkaranbhai had expired prior to 25 years from the date her deposition. She has deposed that after the death of her husband Ukabhai, the suit premises was rented to her and she was paying rent at Rs. 30 per month. She has categorically stated that she had married to Ukabhai Devkaranbhai before number of years and her husband Ukabhai Devkaranbhai had expired prior to 25 years from the date her deposition. She has deposed that after the death of her husband Ukabhai, the suit premises was rented to her and she was paying rent at Rs. 30 per month. She has categorically deposed that her husband Ukabhai was carrying on hotel business in the suit premises when he was alive. She has deposed about all the family members of deceased Ukabhai and his first wife Samratben and further categorically stated that Babubhai and son of Mansukhbhai were maintaining her and taking care of her and all family members are residing together under one roof. She deposed that even after the death of Samratben, she is maintained by Babubhai and Bharatkumar. 9.1 It appears from her deposition that the petitioner Trust had rented several premises to Ukabhai and thereafter to lady tenant Jadiben. The Trust had filed several suits and, ultimately, in all cases, she succeeded and eviction decree passed by the Trial Court in all cases were quashed and set aside by the appellate Court and confirmed by the High Court. She has denied that she was not the wife of Ukabhai. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that she does not have any proof about the marriage having been taken between Ukabhai and herself. She has stated that her marriage took place about 60 years prior to the deposition before the court and at that time Ukabhai was 45 years old and she was of very young age. It is true that in the ration card of Ukabhai, her name was not mentioned. When Babubhai, son of deceased Ukabhai and his first wife Samratben come forward before the appellate court and submit application Exhibit-9 and plead that Jadiben was his father s wife, the say of Jadiben about her marital status is strengthened. In India, a person would not come forward before the court and accept a woman as his father s second wife, that too, for a small rental premises. In India, a person would not come forward before the court and accept a woman as his father s second wife, that too, for a small rental premises. 10 In the above facts and background of the case, it appears that, the marriage between Ukabhai and Jadiben must have been taken place in the year 1916, and it is not at all expected that, an old lady aged about 75 years, would maintain any record with regard to her marriage when not questioned by anybody including wife and children of Ukabhai. It is an admitted position that the registration of marriage was not compulsory when the marriage took place between Ukabhai and Jadiben. In my opinion, an old lady, would not come forward before the court and depose that a particular person, who had expired about 25 years, was her husband and she was residing with him and his family. It also appears that, after the death of Ukabhai, the Trust had let different properties to Jadiben. The Trust is trying to get the rented premises vacated only on this ground that Babubhai and Bharatkumar are not the family members of Jadiben. 11 In the case of Kailashbhai ShukaramTiwari (supra) while dealing with the provisions of Section 13(1)(e) of the Rent Act, the Apex Court has categorically held that in absence of definition of the word family in the Act, the Court has to consider the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case of Taraben D/o Shivshanker Nathji Pandya (supra), the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, has also considered the case of Kailashbhai Sukharam Tiwari (supra) and after considering the same and considering the facts of the said case, came to the conclusion that, though, the parties were related at 4th generation, they cannot be treated as family. The conduct of the parties were appreciated in the case of Taraben D/o Shivsanker Nathji Pandya (supra). 12 As far as the observation made in the order dated 24th June, 1994 below Exhibit-9 of the appellate court by which Babubhai is accepted as legal heir of Jadiben, I do not find any error in the said decision since it is a well reasoned order by the appellate court. 12 As far as the observation made in the order dated 24th June, 1994 below Exhibit-9 of the appellate court by which Babubhai is accepted as legal heir of Jadiben, I do not find any error in the said decision since it is a well reasoned order by the appellate court. 13 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or error committed by the appellate court while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent tenant. Hence, the present Revision Application deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier, shall stand vacated.