In Brief
A landlord sought eviction of a tenant from her shop to expand her daughter's medical clinic. The trial court and appellate court found the landlord's need genuine and granted eviction. The High Court set aside the orders, holding that the married daughter did not fall within the statutory definition of 'family'. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that any female with a legal right of residence in a building—including a married daughter who inherits a share—qualifies as 'family' under the Act and can ground an eviction claim. The Court also held that the High Court erred in re-appreciating facts in its writ jurisdiction, contrary to established principles governing revisional jurisdiction.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.