Son Not Expected To Brand His Father As 'Swindler': Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction From Self-Acquired House Of Elderly Parents
The Bombay High Court recently evicted a son from the self acquired house of his parents and held that a son cannot claim that his parents have lost mental balance. Justice Rohit Deo observed that, "In the conservative Indian society, a son is not expected to brand his aged father a 'swindler' or then allege that the aged parents have lost mental balance. The allegations that the...
The Bombay High Court recently evicted a son from the self acquired house of his parents and held that a son cannot claim that his parents have lost mental balance.
Justice Rohit Deo observed that,
"In the conservative Indian society, a son is not expected to brand his aged father a 'swindler' or then allege that the aged parents have lost mental balance. The allegations that the aged parents have been physically assaulted, that the other son was also assaulted and that visitors are prevented from entering the residential house, are not specifically traversed."
It was further observed that the emotional and physical well being of the aged parents cannot be ensured unless the petitioners vacate the self-acquired residential house.
The parents had moved their plea before the Tribunal under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 claiming that they were being mentally and physically harassed by their son and the daughter in law.
Before the Court, the parents argued that their son had forcibly taken possession of a portion of the said house and is conducting himself in a manner as would pose a serious threat to their safety and security. The father argued that he is a heart patient and needs to undergo a surgery but has not been able to for lack for funds. Further, he said that the son must be made to vacate the illegally occupied area because that can be used for rental income to better maintain themselves.
The son argued that his father is not a heart patient. He also argued that the tribunal committed a jurisdictional error in virtually treating the application under Section 5 of the Act as a suit for eviction.
Court noted that a Single Judge of the High Court had held in Shri Santosh Surendra Patil v. Shri Surendra Narasgopnda Patil & Ors. 2017 All MR (Cri) 4065 that there is no illegality in evicting sons from the residential house to ensure the peace of the senior citizen.
The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act cannot be converted into a suit for eviction, is not wrong as a proposition of law, the Court noted. However, it added that if the senior citizens are harassed and have genuine reasons to perceive that their emotional and or physical well being and security is under threat, there is no reason to hold that the Tribunal has no power to direct eviction.
In view of the above, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Namdeo and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 165