ORDER
H.V.G. Ramesh, J.
1. This revision is under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the eviction petition filed by the petitioner/landlord in HRC 618/2001.
2. The original petitioner/landlord died during pendency of the petition and his wife represents him. The petition was filed under the old Act under Section 21(1)(h)(p) & (f) of the Rent Control Act, 1961 seeking for eviction of the tenant from the petition premises on the ground of requirement for the sister-in-law of the original petitioner who is none other than the sister of the present petitioner who is contesting the case and also on the ground of subletting and alternate accommodation is available to the tenant. The same was contested by the respondent denying the pleadings. According to him, he has no other alternate accommodation and there is no subletting and, the petition is filed with an intention to evict him. The trial court after enquiry negated the contention of the petitioner and dismissed the petition. Hence, this revision.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.
4. It is the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the definition of the word 'family' under Section 3 of the Rent Act, 1999 includes 'sister-in-law' also and the trial court ought to have construed the dependency and relationship in a proper perspective and the requirement of the sister of the present petitioner who is dependant for her residence though she is earning. In support of his argument, learned Counsel relied upon the decision in Smt. Varija Achar and Ors. v. K. Balakrishna Rao 2003 (1) Kar. LJ 221. It is his further submission that even though photos have been produced in support of the fact of alternate accommodation being available, the trial court disbelieving the same, has held that it is not proved by the petitioner and there is subletting also. The tenant is creating nuisance and threatening the landlord with dire consequences and that the trial court has committed an error in passing the impugned order.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent/tenant vehemently contended that there is no requirement of the petition premises and the relationship is not established as the original petitioner's sister-in-law was earning and as such, the decision relied upon by the petitioner's counsel cannot be accepted and the same is not applicable to the case on hand. It is further submitted that there is no subletting nor alternative accommodation is available to the respondent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision.
6. Let me consider whether any error as such is committed by the trial court in passing the impugned order; whether there is requirement of the petition premises to accommodate the sister-in-law of the petitioner i.e, the sister of the present petitioner; whether the trial court committed an error in holding that there is no subletting and alternate accommodation is available to the respondent.
7. In Varija Achar's case cited supra, this Court has held:
Family within the meaning of this statute has always been understood as being a unit consisting of parents and dependents. If there is a widowed family member or for that matter closely related young children who have lost their breadwinner, parents and the like, that even though strictly speaking and biologically if they are not within the family that they would be like 'foster dependents' and would have to be taken as part of the unit.
8. The ratio laid down in the said case makes it clear that even the foster dependants would have to be deemed as part of the Unit. In the instant case, it is noticed, though there is requirement for the sister-in-law of the original petitioner, on the ground that she is earning, the trial court has held that she is not a dependant. In the above cited judgment, what is stated is 'even foster dependant' i.e., persons taken care of by the family and their earning (sic) in view of the scope explained in the above judgment, even foster dependants are to considered as dependants. May be in the present case, the sister-in-law is financially independent but, the fact remains that the sister-in-law being a lady, is depending on the family of her sister for her residence and company. What is pleaded in the petition is, to accommodate her after her marriage the premises is required. It may be that she is presently not residing with the family after marriage as no accommodation made available as the premises is in occupation of the respondent but, that does not mean that there is no requirement. In view of the enlargement of the definition of the word 'family' and 'dependants', it has to be held that the sister-in-law also comes under the definition of dependants and it cannot be said she does not come under the said definition.
9. Further, it is not proved by the respondent by rebuttal evidence that there is other alternative accommodation available. Of course, after marriage, the sister-in-law of the original petitioner needs privacy. In the circumstance, the need of the petitioner to accommodate the sister-in-law cannot be said to be were desire or is only with an intention to evict the respondent. Further, though some photos have been produced to show that there is alternate accommodation available, to tenant it was for the landlord either to get a Commissioner appointed or produce cogent evidence in this regard. After looking into the evidence, the trial court has dismissed the case of the petitioner on the ground of sub-letting and availability of alternate accommodation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the trial court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the sister-in-law of the petitioner is not a dependant and, she has to be treated as a family member of the landlord despite the fact that she is having independent income and when it is also admitted that she is residing with the petitioner.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the petition filed under Section 27(2)(r) is allowed while setting aside the impugned order. In respect of the other grounds, the order of the trial court is confirmed. However, three months time has been granted from today to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the petition premises. Parties to bear their own costs.