READ ORDER | Bombay HC Orders Eviction Of Daughter From 94-Year-Old Father’s Home Citing Harassment For Property

The Bombay High Court has observed that the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can pass an order for removal of a person from the senior citizen’s property.

A division bench comprising Justice Gautam Patel and Madhav J Jamdar endorsed the view expressed by a division bench of the Delhi High Court in the case Sunny Paul v State of NCT of Delhi, wherein it was laid down that the Maintenance Tribunal can pass an order of eviction.

The high court observed,

We entirely endorse the views of the learned Single Judge and accept them as our own. We are also fully in agreement with the views of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Sunny Paul v State of NCT of Delhi, a most careful and elaborate judgment that includes what appears to us to be a comprehensive overview of the jurisprudence.

Case:

Mahabala Shetty, who is about 94-years-old, in his complaint had said that he was being continuously harassed and mistreated by his daughter Shweta who came from Germany to India in 2015 and moved into the flat unannounced. He further said that she had been rude, aggressive and that her conduct deteriorated and worsened over time and that she began to badger Mr Shetty “for her share of the property”.

The daughter further said that she would leave the flat only after she was given “her share” and her conduct posed a danger to his safety. Since she continued to harass and demand her share, Mr Shetty approached the Tribunal seeking a relief to evict her from his flat.

Aggrieved with the Tribunal’s order, the petitioner Shweta had approached the High Court.

Allegations by Father

The complaint of Mr Shetty, is that although he is a widower with several age-related health ailments of varying degrees of severity, he is being continuously harassed and mistreated by Shweta. 

Although she was to stay for a short period, she never left. Mr Shetty was 87-years-old when she came into the flat. He has been hospitalised several times. He was in no state of physical or mental health to confront Shweta and perhaps even thought that she might help in his old age. But, he says, his expectations were dashed. Shweta has contributed nothing to the house. Indeed, he goes on to say that she has been rude, aggressive and that her conduct has deteriorated and worsened over time.

In one of the specific allegation of this complaint, Mr Shetty alleges that she began to badger him, “for her share of the property”, and said that she would leave the flat only after she was given “her share”. He then details her conduct, which he says poses a danger to his safety. He goes on to say that he is so intimidated that he has had to lock himself into his room.

Mr Shetty has been dependent on two domestic help for his medication and day-to-day needs. The two ladies have been with him for the last 26 years. Shweta has been quarrelling with both of them and has made allegations against them. She has caused physical distress to them and damaged the household as well

Arguments by Daughter

Advocate Pradeep Thorat for the petitioner (“Shweta”) submitted that the Tribunal’s order had resulted in eviction of Shweta from the premises which was impermissible under the scheme of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007.

It was also his contention that u/s 5 the Tribunal could only entertain an application by the Tribunal and Mr Shetty’s application was for eviction. He further submitted that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction, apart from the fact that it proceeded on a significant procedural illegality.

Bombay High Court

The bench of Justices G.S. Patel and Madhav J Jamdar was considering a writ petition in which the order dated November 27, 2020 passed by the Welfare Tribunal and Deputy Collector (G.A.) Mumbai City on a complaint made to that Tribunal by Mr Shetty was challenged.

The Court observed that the intent of the Act is not to limit the rights of the senior citizens but to maximize them. The Court also noted that the senior citizens do not have the luxury of time and the proceedings before the Tribunal cannot be protracted on the basis of baseless claims.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the Delhi High Court’s decision was based on the fact that the Delhi Rules provided for eviction. The bench remarked,

Mr. Thorat’s efforts to contend that this result was only because there are special rules in Delhi that permit eviction does not commend itself to us at all. The Rules cannot, axiomatically, confer a power that does not extend in the statute itself. At best, the Rules may provide a procedure or may clarify, but cannot confer a substantive legal right beyond that which the Act contemplates.

Therefore, the argument defeats itself: if the Delhi rules provide for eviction of a person with no right in the property to protect the interests and welfare of a senior citizen, this necessarily means that the right to order a removal of a claimant exists in the statute itself.

On the aspect of the petitioner’s argument of procedural irregularity or illegality, the bench said,

We do not believe that it is the statutory intent that the harassment to a senior citizen should continue while the Tribunal is flooded or inundated with some evidence or the other only to prolong or delay matters.

The one thing that senior citizens do not have the benefit or luxury of is time. It is not on their side, and every day’s delay before a Tribunal like this hurts senior citizens exponentially more than the younger generation.

Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below 

Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below