P&H High Court Upholds Tenant's Ejectment On Personal Necessity Citing Landlord's Moral Duty To Settle Grown-Up Sons During His Lifetime
Observing that "It is his moral duty to settle down his grown up sons during his lifetime," the Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the ejectment of a tenant on the basis of personal necessity and arrears of rent.The ejectment was filed based on the arrears of rent and for the personal use of the shop by his sons, which was occupied by the tenant.Justice Amarjot Bhatti said, "By no...
Observing that "It is his moral duty to settle down his grown up sons during his lifetime," the Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the ejectment of a tenant on the basis of personal necessity and arrears of rent.
The ejectment was filed based on the arrears of rent and for the personal use of the shop by his sons, which was occupied by the tenant.
Justice Amarjot Bhatti said, "By no means it can be said that the requirement of Sucha Singh (landlord) is unreasonable or not genuine. The landlord/respondent (petitioner in the main case) has every right to start his own business in his own premises as per his desire. It is his moral duty to settle down his grown up sons during his lifetime. Therefore, the requirement of landlord/respondent (petitioner in the main case) for the tenanted shop is bona fide."
These observations were made while hearing the plea of Balkar Singh, challenging the ejectment order of Rent Appellate Authority.
Sucha Singh had filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of Balkar Singh from the shop which stated to be owned by him and was allegedly in occupation of the Balkar Singh for the last about 20 years on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000.
It was alleged that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was submitted that the tenant is liable to be ejected from the shop in dispute on the ground of non payment of rent since January, 2000 and secondly, he required the shop for occupation of his sons.
On the other hand the petitioner argued that the ejectment petition is not maintainable because he was neither owner of the shop nor has got any right, title or interest therein. He submitted that he was in occupation of shop for the last about 35 years. It was denied that monthly rent of the shop was Rs.1,000, the relationship of landlord and tenant was also denied.
Considering the submissions, the Court noted that the Appellate Authority has rightly held that there existed tenant-landlord relationship between the parties and the tenant is in arrears if rent since January, 2000.
The landlord filed this ejectment petition on the ground that he requires the shop for his personal use and necessity as well as to settle down his sons namely Ajay Paul Singh and Montek Singh, the Court further noted.
Adding that, "by no means it can be said that the requirement of Sucha Singh is unreasonable or not genuine", the Court said, the landlord wanted to construct a departmental store/mall by eviction of all the tenants to start his business along with his sons.
Justice Bhatti observed that, it is his moral duty to settle down his grown up sons during his lifetime. Therefore, the requirement of landlord for the tenanted shop is bona fide.
In the light of the above, the revision petition was declined.
R.K.Arya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Naresh Jain, Advocate for the respondent-caveator.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 295
Case Title: Balkar Singh v. Sucha Singh