- (1.) The only point raised in this petition is that the respondent could not claim ejectment of the petitioner on grounds of personal necessity because a husband is not a member of the family of the wife in the eyes of law. In support of this proposition, the learned counsel for the petitioner cites Re-Mc-Keown, 1962 (Vol. 3) Dominion Law Reports 796. This case is, however, distinguishable on facts. Dorovan, J., who decided that case was concerned with the construction of a will. The propositus had left his property to Mrs. Burgess and family." The learned Judge held that these words connoted that Mrs. Burgess and her children were entitled to the property of the propositus. There is no discussion in the judgment on the point why the husband of Mrs. Burgess was excluded. The rule laid down in this authority is obviously not helpful for the decision of the instant case. A Hindu marriage is the union, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others, brought about in accordance with the religious ceremonies. A Hindu wife after her marriage becomes a member of the family of the husband and also acquires his caste. The family of the married spouses becomes as such the family of the wife as it is of the husband. In this view of the matter, a husband belongs to the family of the wife in the eyes of law. The East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, places restrictions upon the right of a landlord to claim ejectment of tenants. A tenant, who seeks the benefit of the provisions of the said Act, should plead and prove that his case positively falls within any of the provisions of the Act disentitling landlord to claim his ejectment. The statute does not expressly lay down that a husband will not be regarded as a member of the family of the wife. In these circumstances, it would he open to the Court to fall back upon the personal law of the parties and to hold that a husband is a member of the family of the wife and the latter can claim ejectment of a tenant so that her husband may use the premises in dispute. With these observations, this petition is dismissed but in the circumstance of the case with no order as to costs. The petitioner, is however, allowed to vacate the premises on or before May 31, 1975.;