Senior Citizens Cannot Be Forced To Litigate For Their Own Home | Bombay High Court Restores Eviction Of Son And Daughter-In-Law Under Welfare Act
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Single Bench of Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar has allowed a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, setting aside the order passed by the Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal. The court quashed the appellate decision that had reversed an eviction order previously granted in favour of the petitioners, who are senior citizens. The court directed the respondents to vacate the house owned by the petitioners within thirty days and further mandated payment of arrears for occupation, along with costs. The High Court found that the Appellate Tribunal had erred in treating the eviction claim as a mere civil dispute, ignoring the statutory protections available to senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The petitioners, senior citizens aged 67 and 66 respectively, filed an application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking eviction of their son and daughter-in-law from their self-acquired house property located in Nandurbar. According to the petitioners, the son and daughter-in-law were allowed to reside in the property following their marriage, considering their immediate needs. However, after matrimonial disputes escalated, the daughter-in-law initiated multiple legal proceedings, including criminal complaints and a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The petitioners claimed that the daughter-in-law began harassing them, which led them to approach the Tribunal seeking eviction under the said Act. The Tribunal, presided over by the Sub Divisional Officer, passed an order on 18.02.2019 directing the respondents to vacate the premises within 30 days.
Subsequently, the daughter-in-law filed an appeal under Section 16(1) of the Act before the Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal, challenging the Tribunal's eviction order. In the appeal, she cited her right to reside in the matrimonial home due to ongoing proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act and the Domestic Violence Act. She also referred to criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC.
The Appellate Tribunal, presided over by the District Collector, allowed the appeal on 07.08.2020, stating that the dispute appeared to be civil in nature and the petitioners should seek recourse before the appropriate civil court. The petitioners then approached the High Court under Article 227.
Before the High Court, the petitioners submitted that they had purchased the suit property using their own funds and had taken a loan for which they were still repaying instalments. They contended that they were being deprived of the enjoyment of their property due to the unauthorised occupation by their son and daughter-in-law.
The petitioners submitted an affidavit dated 19.06.2024, which stated that the daughter-in-law had purchased an independent house consisting of three bedrooms through a registered sale deed dated 27.08.2021 and currently resides there. The affidavit also asserted that she continues to occupy part of the petitioners' property without any legal right.
They argued that the appellate decision was arbitrary and defeated the object of the 2007 Act. In support, they relied on decisions from this Court in Dattatrey Shivaji Mane vs. Lilabai Shivaji, 2018 (6) Mh.L.J. 681, and Shweta Shetty vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 (1) Mh.L.J. 279, which recognised the right of senior citizens to seek eviction of children or relatives occupying their property without authority.
The respondents did not file a reply. Despite being served and represented initially, their counsel withdrew, and no compliance was shown with the High Court’s interim order dated 21.12.2022 directing monthly payments of Rs.20,000.
The Assistant Government Pleader representing the Tribunal submitted that the Tribunal’s interpretation of the Act as excluding eviction powers was legally plausible and did not preclude civil remedies.
The Court stated: "On careful consideration of the factual aspects involved in the matter, it does appear that the petitioners are owners of the Bungalow i.e. suit property, which is purchased by them and apparently it is their self-acquired property. There is no document on record establishing any kind of ownership right of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in this suit property."
"It is crucial to note that there is nothing on record in the nature of any order or decree directing grant of maintenance or right to reside in favour of respondent No.4."
"Thus, apart from her bare contentions in the appeal before the Appellate Authority, there is no document on record establishing any right in favour of respondent No.4 to reside in the suit property."
"The provisions of the Act cannot be read in isolation and a holistic approach need to be adopted in accordance with the Aims and Objects of the Act."
"Only because respondent Nos.3 and 4 were allowed by the petitioners to reside in their house, the same cannot be construed to have conferred any right in favour of the daughter-in-law particularly when her relations with the son have turned hostile."
"The son and daughter-in-law cannot compel their parents to allow them to reside in their property against their desire."
The Court cited the judgment in Dattatrey Shivaji Mane vs. Lilabai Shivaji, noting: "The said Act is enacted for the benefit and protection of senior citizen from his children or grant children... section 4 cannot be read in isolation but has to be read with section 23 and also sections 2(b), 2(d) and 2(f) of the said Act."
"The approach of the appellate tribunal, in not considering the authoritative pronouncement of this court delivered in the year 2018... demonstrates insensitivity on its part."
The Court remarked: "The Appellate Tribunal has adopted an unduly hyper-technical approach, thereby defeating the very object and purpose of the special statute, which is in the nature of beneficial legislation enacted to safeguard the rights and interests of senior citizens."
Regarding conduct, the Court stated: "It is apparent that during the pendency of the petition, the respondent No.4 has continued to occupy the petitioners’ home in absence of any right in her favour thereby compelling the petitioners to indulge in litigations up to this court. This conduct on the part of respondent No.4 is deprecated."
The High Court quashed and set aside the order dated 07.08.2020 passed by the Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal/District Collector, Nandurbar in Case No. 2020/home/Division-2/Appeal/4/2020. It confirmed the order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in Case No. 2019/Senior Citizen/Kavi/02.
The Court directed: "The respondents no.3 and 4 are directed to vacate the house property of the petitioners within a period of 30 days from the date of this judgment."
Further, the Court stated: "Since respondent No. 3 and 4 have failed to comply with the mandate of the order passed by this Court directing to pay Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of order of the Tribunal i.e. 18 February 2019, it is necessary in the interest of justice to direct the respondent No.3 and 4 to comply and pay to the petitioners the entire amount of arrears at the earliest and also to bear with the costs of the instant petition."
"The writ petition is allowed with costs upon the respondent No.3 and 4."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. N. S. Jaju holding for Mr. P. P. Patni, Advocates
For the Respondents: Ms. M. L. Sangit, Assistant Government Pleader
Case Title: Chandiram Anandram Hemnani and Anr. vs. Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AUG:15227
Case Number: Writ Petition No.7794 of 2020
Bench: Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar
[Read/Download order]
