Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by senior citizens, Chandiram Anandram Hemnani and Sau. Sushila Chandiram Hemnani, against the orders of the Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal which had set aside an eviction order against their son and daughter-in-law from their self-acquired property. The petitioners, aged 67 and 66, owned a bungalow in Nandurbar, purchased in 2008 from their own funds. Their son, respondent no.3, and daughter-in-law, respondent no.4, were allowed to reside there after their marriage, but disputes arose and the daughter-in-law filed criminal and matrimonial proceedings against them. The petitioners approached the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking eviction. The Tribunal, on 18 February 2019, ordered the son and daughter-in-law to vacate within 30 days. Respondent no.4 appealed to the Appellate Tribunal under section 16(1) of the Act, claiming a right to reside due to pending matrimonial proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act and Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and criminal proceedings under IPC. The Appellate Tribunal, on 7 August 2020, allowed the appeal, holding that the dispute was civil in nature and the petitioners should approach the civil court, thereby quashing the eviction order. The petitioners challenged this order before the High Court. The High Court observed that the petitioners were absolute owners with no document showing any right of respondents in the property. It noted that respondent no.4 had no specific order under the Domestic Violence Act granting residence rights, and that even during pendency of the writ petition, she had purchased another house. The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal had adopted a perverse approach, defeating the object of the Act which aims to protect the life and property of senior citizens. Relying on precedent, it held that eviction claims are maintainable under the Act and that the availability of civil remedy does not bar the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Appellate Tribunal's order, and restored the eviction order dated 18 February 2019, directing the son and daughter-in-law to vacate the property.
Headnote
A) Senior Citizens Law - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Scope for eviction - Sections 4, 5, 22(2) - The Act is not confined to maintenance; it aims at protection of life and property of senior citizens. Held that the Appellate Tribunal erred in treating the dispute as purely civil and rejecting eviction, as the Act provides a special mechanism for senior citizens to seek eviction to protect their right to enjoy their own property unmolested. (Paras 5, 14) B) Senior Citizens Law - Interpretation of the Act - Aims and Objects - The Act must be read holistically and not in isolation. The Aims and Objects and Section 22(2) mandate protection of life and property, thus an application for eviction is maintainable. Reliance placed on 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). (Paras 6, 14) C) Family Law - Right to Residence - Daughter-in-law - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Mere pendency of matrimonial proceedings or criminal cases does not confer a right to reside in parents-in-law's property. In the absence of a specific order under the Domestic Violence Act or any decree for maintenance, a daughter-in-law has no legal right to occupy the self-acquired property of her parents-in-law. (Paras 12, 13) D) Civil Law - Alternative Remedy - Senior Citizens Act - The availability of a civil remedy does not bar the Tribunal from granting relief under the Act. The Senior Citizens Tribunal is not ousted of jurisdiction merely because the dispute has civil trappings. Held that the Appellate Tribunal misdirected itself in directing the petitioners to approach the civil court. (Paras 5, 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the eviction order passed by the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and directing the senior citizens to approach the civil court, and whether the Act permits eviction of adult children from the self-acquired property of senior citizens.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal dated 07.08.2020, and restored the eviction order of the Tribunal dated 18.02.2019, directing respondent nos.3 and 4 to vacate the petitioners' property. The Court held that the Act empowers senior citizens to seek eviction and that the Appellate Tribunal misdirected itself in treating the matter as purely civil.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Senior citizens can seek eviction of adult children from their self-acquired property under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act
- 2007
- The Act provides for protection of life and property of senior citizens under Section 22(2)
- The Act must be interpreted holistically in accordance with its aims and objects
- An eviction claim under the Act is maintainable without the senior citizen having to file a separate civil suit
- An Appellate Tribunal cannot refuse eviction solely because a civil remedy is available
- Existence of matrimonial disputes or pendency of criminal cases does not confer right to reside in parents' property in absence of any order under Domestic Violence Act or other law
- In the absence of any order granting residence rights
- a daughter-in-law has no legal right to occupy parents' property
