'Senior Citizens Do Not Have Luxury Of Time' : Bombay High Court Upholds Maintenance Tribunal's Power To Pass Eviction Orders

The Bombay High Court has observed that the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can pass an order for removal of a person from the senior citizen's property.

A division bench comprising Justice Gautam Patel and Madhav J Jamdar endorsed the view expressed by a division bench of the Delhi High Court in the case Sunny Paul v State of NCT of Delhi, wherein it was laid down that the Maintenance Tribunal can pass an order of eviction.

The division bench also approved the view expressed by a single bench of the Bombay High Court in the case Dattatrey Shivaji Mane v. Lilabai Shivaji Mane & ors that an eviction order can be passed for the protection of the senior citizen.

"We entirely endorse the views of the learned Single Judge and accept them as our own. We are also fully in agreement with the views of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Sunny Paul v State of NCT of Delhi, a most careful and elaborate judgment that includes what appears to us to be a comprehensive overview of the jurisprudence", the Court observed.

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the Delhi High Court's decision was based on the fact that the Delhi Rules provided for eviction.

"Mr. Thorat's efforts to contend that this result was only because there are special rules in Delhi that permit eviction does not commend itself to us at all. The Rules cannot, axiomatically, confer a power that does not extend in the statute itself. At best, the Rules may  provide a procedure or may clarify, but cannot confer a substantive  legal right beyond that which the Act contemplates. Therefore, the argument defeats itself: if the Delhi rules provide for eviction of a  person with no right in the property to protect the interests and welfare of a senior citizen, this necessarily means that the right to order a removal of a claimant exists in the statute itself".

The bench of Justices G.S.Patel & Madhav J Jamdar was considering a writ petition in which the order dated November 27, 2020 passed by the Welfare Tribunal and Deputy Collector (G.A.) Mumbai City on a complaint made to that Tribunal by Mr Shetty was challenged.

The Court observed that the intent of the Act is not to limit the rights of the senior citizens but to maximize them. The Court also noted that the senior citizens do not have the luxury of time and the proceedings before the Tribunal cannot be protracted on the basis of baseless claims.

Mr Shetty, who is about 94 years old, in his complaint had said that he was being continuously harassed and mistreated by his daughter Shweta who came to India in 2015 and moved into the flat unannounced. He further said that she had been rude, aggressive and that her conduct deteriorated and worsened over time and that she began to badger Mr Shetty "for her share of the property". She further said that she would leave the flat only after she was given "her share" and her conduct posed a danger to his safety. Since she continued to harass and demand her share, Mr Shetty approached the Tribunal seeking a relief to evict her from his flat. 

Aggrieved with the Tribunal's order, the petitioner Shweta had approached the High Court.

Counsel's Contention

Advocate Pradeep Thorat for the petitioner ("Shweta") submitted that the Tribunal's order had resulted in eviction of Shweta from the premises which was impermissible under the scheme of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007. It was also his contention that u/s 5 the Tribunal could only entertain an application by the Tribunal and Mr Shetty's application was for eviction. He further submitted that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction, apart from the fact that it proceeded on a significant procedural illegality.

Dr Sujay Kantawala with Advocate Aditya Iyer appeared Mahabala Shetty the 94 years old father and his two caretaker maids, Yamuna Patil and Papia Patil. Advocate Aishwarya Kantawala appeared for Vinata Renuka and Jyoti Shetty, the other two sisters of Shweta Shetty. AGP Kedar Dighe appeared for the State.

High Court's Analysis

Relying on Ritika Prashant Jasani v Anjana Niranjan Jasani & Ors 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1802, in which the appellant's claim was that the house was a 'shared household', i.e. that she had a legally definable right in the property itself, the bench said it was not the case before it where Shweta accepted that she had no right in the flat in question.

In this regard, the bench observed that, "The mere use of the word 'eviction' is not by itself determinative. To constitute eviction, or to invoke any prohibition against eviction, it must be shown that some legally enforceable civil right of the appellant in the property itself has been determined and that the appellant has been denied that right. Removal of a person with no right in the premises is not eviction so as to attract any such prohibition. After all, as Jasani notes, the statutory intent is to protect senior citizens. It is not to foist on senior citizens an imaginary claim over their own property where the claimant has no such right to begin with. The statutory intent is not to limit the rights of senior citizens, but exactly the reverse."

Reliance was also placed on the judgements in S Vanitha v Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District And Ors. , Ashish Vinod Dalal and Ors v Vinod Ramanlal Dalal and Ors 

On the aspect of the petitioner's argument of procedural irregularity or illegality, the bench said, "We do not believe that it is the statutory intent that the harassment to a senior citizen should continue while the Tribunal is flooded or inundated with some evidence or the other only to prolong or delay matters. The one thing that senior citizens do not have the benefit or luxury of is time. It is not on their side, and every day's delay before a Tribunal like this hurts senior citizens exponentially more than the younger generation."

Case Title: Shweta Shetty v State of Maharashtra| Writ Petition (L) NO. 9374 OF 2020

Click Here To Read/Download Judgement