'They Are Licensees At Best' : Calcutta HC Upholds Senior Citizen's Right To Reside In His Own House, Orders Eviction Of Son And Daughter-In-Law

The Calcutta High Court on Friday reiterated that the right of a senior citizen to exclusively reside in his own house and also direct the eviction of his son and daughter-in-law if need be, must be viewed from the prism of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Rajasekhar Mantha also opined,

"A nation that cannot take care of its aged, old, and infirm citizens cannot be regarded as having achieved complete civilization."

The Court made the aforementioned observations while adjudicating upon a plea by two senior citizens (petitioners) seeking the eviction of the son and daughter-in-law from their residence.

In the instant case, the Court vide an earlier order dated July 12, 2021 had directed the Officer-in-charge, Taherpur Police Station to escort out the son and daughter-in-law from the premises of the petitioners in order to ensure the well-being of the aged citizens. This was accordingly complied with and thereafter the Court proceeded to make certain pertinent observations.

Justice Mantha observed that the law is well settled that children and their spouses living in a senior citizen's house are 'licensees at best' and that such a license to reside at the senior citizen's residence ceases to exist as soon as the senior citizen stops being comfortable with the children and their families.

One of the issues that was to be adjudicated by the Court was whether the availability of alternative remedies under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (2007 Act) bars the senior citizens i.e. the petitioners from approaching the High Court in its Writ jurisdiction.

To this the Bench observed that since a senior citizen's right to exclusively reside in his own house emanates from the fundamental right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, it would be unjust to compel such senior citizens to take recourse to alternate remedies provided under the 2007 Act,

"To compel a senior citizen to approach either a civil court (the jurisdiction of which is any way barred under Section 27 of the 2007 Act) or take recourse to a special Statute like the 2007 Act would in most cases be extremely erroneous and painful for a person in the sunset days of life. This Court is therefore of the view that the principle of alternative remedy cannot be strictly applied to Senior Citizens and a Writ Court must come to the aid of a Senior Citizen in a given case", the Court emphasised.

Further, the Court also opined on a daughter-in-law's right to residence if a claim to this effect is made under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Accordingly reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgement in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissoner, Bangaluru Urban District wherein the Apex Court had held that since both, the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and also the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are special legislations, the two must be construed harmoniously and appropriately applied while adjudicating upon a plea of senior citizens who do not want their children to live with them.

The Supreme Court had ruled in the aforementioned case,

"The law protecting the interest of senior citizens is intended to ensure that they are not left destitute, or at the mercy of their children or relatives. Equally, the purpose of the PWDV Act 2005 cannot be ignored by a sleight of statutory interpretation. Both sets of legislations have to be harmoniously construed"

However in the instant case, the daughter-in-law had not claimed any right of residence under the Domestic Violence Act. Accordingly, the Court held that there lies no impediment in allowing the petitioners (senior citizens) to exercise their exclusive residentiary rights and to direct the eviction of the son and daughter-in-law.

Case Title: Ramapada Basak & Anr v. State of West Bengal & Ors

Click Here To Read/Download Order