The Punjab and Hayana High Court in the case Balkar Singh v. Sucha Singh observed that it is his moral duty to settle down his grown-up sons during his lifetime.
The court in the case upheld the ejectment of a tenant which being on the basis of personal necessity and arrears of rent.
The bench headed by Justice Amarjot Bhatti in the case stated that by no means it can be said that the requirement of Sucha Singh (landlord) is unreasonable or not genuine. Thus, the landlord or respondent i.e, the petitioner in the main case has every right to start his own business in his own premises as per his desire and it is his moral duty to settle down his grown-up sons during his lifetime.
Therefore, the court stated that the requirement of landlord or respondent i.e., the petitioner in the main case) for the tenanted shop is bona fide.
The court in the case was hearing the petition moved by one of Balkar Singh, wherein challenging the ejectment order of Rent Appellate Authority.
In the present case, Sucha Singh had filed the 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 the occupation of the Balkar Singh for the last about 20 years on a monthly rent for an amount of Rs.1,000.
It was alleged before the court that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
Further, 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, it has been argued by the petitioner in the plea that the ejectment petition is not maintainable because he was neither the owner of the shop nor has got any right, title or interest.
Further, it has been submitted by him before the court that he was in occupation of shop for the last about 35 years. Thus, it was denied that monthly rent of the shop was Rs.1,000, the relationship of landlord and tenant was also denied.
The court in the case observed 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.
However, the court stated that the landlord filed this ejectment petition which being 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 bench of Justice Bhatti in the case observed that it being 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.Accordingly, the court declined the revision plea.
The counsel, Advocate R. K. Arya appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Advocate Naresh Jain represented the respondent-caveator.