Calcutta High Court on Wednesday ruled that a father can oust his son from a house either built or taken on rent or licence by him.

Justice Amitava Lala’s ruling comes in response to a petition filed by Amritlal Sud, seeking removal of his son Chhotu from a house in Alipore rented by the former. The court also held that the son had no claim to the flat or building which is rented to his father by the house-owner.

The dispute between Amritlal and Chhotu was over the occupancy of a building on Judge’s Court Road, Alipore.

The father is managing director of a self-promoted finance company, while his son is a director of the same firm.

Earlier, father and son lived in the ground floor of the building and also ran their business from there. Although it is a family business, Amritlal holds the rental agreement.

Chhotu moved into the first floor in 2001 on an agreement with its original occupant, U. Parashar. But father and son fell out and Amritlal alleged that his son had threatened him.

When he asked his son to vacate the first floor, the latter refused. Amritlal claimed that he had paid a huge amount to the landlord for the first floor. The son, on his part, said the ‘managing director’ (his father) of the company had given him permission to stay there and so, it was a company dispute.

The matter had earlier come up at the Alipore court, where the ruling went in favour of the father. So Chhotu moved the high court in appeal.

Another case was pending relating to company affairs. Justice Lala tried to solve the case amicably and held discussions with both parties. The son demanded Rs 2 crore as cost of vacating the place.

Amritlal offered Rs 45 lakh but his son refused to accept anything less than Rs 75 lakh.

Justice Lala ruled that a father holding title or rental or lease agreement would be within his rights to oust his son from the house. The high court, in its order, said it had no intention of disturbing the case pending before the company court between the son and the father over business disputes. “That case can proceed and will not be hampered by the judgment of the high court,” the order stated.

According to legal experts, Justice Lala’s order is significant because it ruled that sons had no right to a property rented by their fathers. “The judgment will be a precedent in similar cases,” the experts opined.