Senior Citizens Act | Eviction Last Resort, Cannot Be Ordered Simply On Asking: Allahabad High Court Grants Relief To Son
The Allahabad High Court has held that a person cannot be evicted from the household merely at the instance of the senior citizen under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.The bench comprising Justice Shree Prakash Singh held,“A Tribunal, under Chapter-II of Act, 2007 cannot direct eviction simplicitor from the property at the instance of senior citizens,...
The Allahabad High Court has held that a person cannot be evicted from the household merely at the instance of the senior citizen under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.
The bench comprising Justice Shree Prakash Singh held,
“A Tribunal, under Chapter-II of Act, 2007 cannot direct eviction simplicitor from the property at the instance of senior citizens, though the Tribunal can direct the children and relatives to make available a residence to such senior citizens in pursuance of an application, filed under the abovesaid chapter. It further emerges that the District Magistrate as an appellate authority under the Act, 2007, can ensure that no one should make any hindrance to a senior citizen to enjoy the property as per his ‘need’ and the right to eviction is the last step, where such authority finds that the need of a senior citizen is not being fulfilled.”
Factual Background
Petitioner claimed that annoyed with his marriage with a woman from the Scheduled Caste community, Petitioner’s father lodged an FIR which was disposed of in Petitioner’s favour. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner and his brother for maintenance, which was fixed @ Rs. 8,000/-p.m. and half of the amount was to be given by the Petitioner.
Further, the parents of the Petitioner filed an application for maintenance under section 7(1) of the Act of 2007 wherein the Sub. Divisional Magistrate passed an order for maintenance. The same was not challenged by the petitioner and maintenance is being paid every month. However, the District Magistrate, sitting in appeal, directed the eviction of the Petitioner.
Counsel for Petitioner contended that the District Magistrate overlooked the fact that the Petitioner was 1/6th owner of the property and maintenance was already being paid by him in terms of the Act and the order of the Court.
Further, it was argued that the District Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction and could not have passed an order of eviction and dispossession. Multiple proceedings have been instituted against the Petitioner in various courts only because the parents did not accept his marriage, it was contended. It was further submitted that after the death of the father, the sisters and brothers-in-law had been pursuing the proceedings to evict the petitioner and sell the house.
Reliance was placed on Randhir Singh v. District Magistrate, Faizabad and Others, wherein the Allahabad High Court held “since the senior citizen, leaving their house, were residing somewhere else whereas there was space to live and none had restrained them to live in the house, thus, no interference is warranted.” Similarly, it was argued that the Petitioner and his mother were living in separate parts of the house and there was no hindrance or interference caused in the mother’s life.
Per contra, the Counsel for the Opposite Parties alleged harassment and abuse of the parents to support the eviction order.
High Court Verdict
The Court noted that the Act of 2007 was enacted to provide for effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution of India and for the matters connected therewith or the incidental thereto. Further, looking at the provisions of the Act, the Court noted
“The explanation and meaning of Section 4(3) of the Act, 2007, can more particularly be derived from the heading that says ‘maintenance of parents and senior citizens’, meaning thereby that the maintenance of parents and senior citizens so far as they can lead a normal life by extending to the needs well fulfilled. Such maintenance of parents is objective of this Act.”
The Court noted the fact that the sisters of the Petitioner were trying to collude with the mother to evict the Petitioner from the house and thereafter sell it.
The Court observed that the Petitioner, living in one part of the house, was not creating any hindrance in his mother’s life, who was living in the other part of the house. Thus, there was no hindrance in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2007.
“Further the procedure of eviction is not at par to the procedure as prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code, where the rights and titles are determined, as the provisions of Act,2007 is for ensuring the needs of the senior citizens and that is to be handled, carefully, so that the structure of the family may not be abrupted,” held Justice Singh.
Accordingly, the order of the District Magistrate was set aside to the extent it directed the eviction of the Petitioner.
Case Title: Krishna Kumar vs. State Of U.P.Thru Prin. Secy.Home Deptt. Lko And Ors. [ WRIT - C No. - 35884 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 275
Counsel for Petitioner: Amol Kumar, Shivanshu Mishra
Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C., Piyush Pathak, R.P.Shukla,S harad Pathak, Sukhdeo Singh, Vidya Bhushan Pandey