The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the ejectment of a tenant on the basis of personal necessity and arrears of rent and observed that it is the moral duty of the respondent to settle down his grown sons during his lifetime and by no means can it be said that the requirement is unreasonable or not genuine.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed the present petition challenging the ejectment order of Rent of Appellate Authority. The respondent had filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for the ejectment of the petitioner from the shop which was stated to be owned by him and was allegedly in his occupation for the last about 20 years a monthly rent of Rs. 1000.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the evidence available on record was not considered by the Courts below and further, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further submitted that there is no evidence to establish that the present petitioner/tenant had ever acknowledged the respondent as his landlord or paid any rent to him and further the courts below wrongly concluded that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further argued that in order to seek ejectment on the grounds of non-payment of rent and for personal use and necessity, the respondent was first required to establish that he was the owner of the premises in dispute.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that there is documentary evidence on record to establish that petitioner is the landlord/owner of the shop in dispute along with the remaining building by virtue of registered sale deed and further submitted that the recital in the sale deed as well as the record of assessment register proved on file was rightly considered by the Courts below and it was rightly concluded that respondent (petitioner in the main case) had purchased the entire building including the shop regarding which ejectment petition was filed.
Observations of the Court:
The court after considering the submissions stated that the Appellate Authority has rightly held that there existed a tenant-landlord relationship between the parties and the tenant had been in arrears of rent since January 2000 and further stated that 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.
Further, the court added that by no means it can be said that the requirement of the petitioner is unreasonable or not genuine and the landlord wanted to construct a departmental store/mall by the eviction of all the tenants to start his business along with his sons.
The court further stated that it is his moral duty to settle down his grown-up sons during his lifetime and thus the requirement of the landlord for the tenanted shop is bona fide.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned order.
Case Title: Balkar Singh vs Sucha Singh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amarjot Bhatti
Case No.: CR-4412-2023(O&M)
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. R.K Arya
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Naresh Jain
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://storage.googleapis.com/idx-acnt-gs.ihouseprd.com/AR439702/file_manager/lease-and-keys.jpg
