Case Compilation: Right of Senior Citizens to evict their children from the property 

A father can disinherit his son from his self-acquired property only, and not from his ancestral property. Self-acquired property refers to property that is not inherited but is self-made out of one’s own funds and resources. 

In this respect, there are many cases that have evolved in the span of time. This Article provides a brief about various case laws pertaining to the right of Senior Citizens to evict their children from the property along with their original judgements and order of various High Courts and the Supreme court

Sandeep Gulati V/s Divisional Commissioner

The Delhi High Court held that a senior citizen has a right to evict his children from the property even if no ill-treatment is done. The court observed, “a senior citizen is merely to show that his property needs protection and need not necessarily have to show that he/she needs maintenance or has been ill-treated by the son or other legal heir.”

Gurpreet Singh V/s State of Punjab and Ors

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the petitioner is a licensee living in the premises on the basis of concession given by his father to live in the property owned by him. As a licensee, the petitioner is only permitted to enjoy the possession of the property licensed but without creating any interest in the property. A licence stands terminated the moment the licensor conveys a notice of termination of a licence.

There is no vested right of any kind in the licensee to remain in possession of the property licensed. Admittedly, respondent No.4 is the owner of the property in question. The petitioner is living in a part of the property.

Such property owned by respondents is required to be protected as mandated by Section 22 of the Act read with Rule 23 of the Rules and para 1 of the Action Plan. There cannot be any effective protection of property of the senior citizens unless the District Magistrate has the power to put the senior citizen into possession of the property and/or to restrain or eject the person who wishes to interfere in the possession of the property of the senior citizen. Protection of the property of a senior citizen includes all incidences, rights and obligations in respect of property in question.

Once a senior citizen makes a complaint to District Magistrate against his son to vacate the premises of which the son is a licensee, such summary procedure will enure for the benefit of the senior citizen.

The petitioner would have no right to resist his eviction only on the ground that the Act does not contemplate the eviction of an occupant. Eviction is one part of the right to protect the property of a senior citizen which right could be exercised by a senior citizen in terms of provisions of the statute, Rules framed and the Action Plan notified.

Darshna V/s Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors

The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner, Darshna has no right, title and interest in the premises and, therefore, cannot insist on residing with Dhani Ram and his wife especially when the relationships between the said parties have deteriorated to the extent as indicated above.” The court added that it is high-time that senior citizens / parents are allowed to live in peace and tranquility, the orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted.

Shadab Khairi V/s The State

The Delhi High court has held that in the present case, excluding daughter-in-law from the scope of Rule 22(3)(1)(i) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 as amended would debilitate the provisions of the Rules and render it incapable to serve the object of Section 22 of the Act.

It is difficult to accept that although a senior citizen is entitled to evict his/her son who is maltreating him, he/she has no option but to suffer the ill-treatment at the hands of his/her daughter-in-law. A daughter-in-laws right to reside in the premises of her in-laws cannot be greater than her husbands‟.

The expression “son and daughter or legal heirs” as used in the aforesaid Rules must also take within its sweep the families of the daughter/son, of a senior citizen. The term “legal heirs” must be understood in the broadest sense. Indisputably, a daughter-in-law is also a heir in certain circumstances (widow of a pre-deceased son).

S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner

The Supreme Court has held that the claim of the appellant that the premises constitute a shared household within the meaning of the PWDV Act 2005 would have to be determined by the appropriate forum. The claim cannot simply be obviated by evicting the appellant in exercise of the summary powers entrusted by the Senior Citizens Act 2007. The Second and Third Respondents are at liberty to make a subsequent application under Section 10 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 for alteration of the maintenance allowance, before the appropriate forum.

Shweta Shetty v. State of Maharashtra

The Bombay High held that the claim for eviction is maintainable under Section 4 of the maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 read with various other provisions of the said Act by a senior citizen against his children and also the grand children.

JurisHour is the fastest online portal for Indian legal news.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *