Summary
Elderly parents sought eviction of their eldest son from a portion of the family house under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007; the Maintenance Tribunal declined eviction but confined the son to one room and a shop with a police check every ten days, the Appellate Tribunal ordered eviction, and the High Court restored the Tribunal's order. The Supreme Court held that the Act confers no express power of eviction, that under S. Vanitha and Urmila Dixit a Tribunal 'may' order eviction only where necessary and expedient to protect the senior citizen, and that eviction was unwarranted here because the Appellate Tribunal gave no such reasons, the son's suits claiming a one-sixth share and challenging the gift and sale deeds were pending, and the father had in any event transferred the property to his daughters and son-in-law.
Issues
- Whether a Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is bound to order eviction of a son from the senior citizen's property, or whether eviction is a discretionary remedy to be ordered only where necessary and expedient for the senior citizen's protection.
- Whether eviction could be ordered when the ownership of the property was disputed in pending civil suits and the senior citizen had transferred the property to others.
Provisions considered
- Chapter II, Sections 4 and 5, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007A senior citizen or parent unable to maintain himself may apply against his children or specified relatives for a monthly maintenance allowance, enforceable by fine and imprisonment up to one month for breach. The Court held the parents' purpose could have been served by a maintenance order under these provisions coupled with a restraint on harassment, rather than eviction. (¶¶ 30, 34)
- Section 23, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007The section allows a transfer of property to be declared void if made against the senior citizen's interest; the Act nowhere expressly provides for eviction. The Tribunal's power to order eviction while exercising Section 23 jurisdiction derives from S. Vanitha and Urmila Dixit, which hold only that it 'may' order eviction when necessary and expedient for the senior citizen's protection. (¶¶ 31, 32)
Held
- The Senior Citizens Act primarily entitles senior citizens to maintenance; it contains no specific provision for eviction. Following S. Vanitha and Urmila Dixit, a Tribunal may order eviction where necessary and expedient to protect the senior citizen, but an eviction order is not mandatory in every case and must be supported by reasons showing that necessity. (¶¶ 27, 31, 32)
- The Appellate Tribunal was not justified in ordering eviction merely because the property belonged to the father, without recording any reason why eviction was necessary and while ignoring that the son's suits claiming a one-sixth share and seeking cancellation of the gift and sale deeds were pending before the civil court; until that dispute is decided it cannot be said that the father was exclusive owner and the son had no share. (¶¶ 24, 32, 33)
- Even on the parents' own case that the house was the father's self-acquired property, he had transferred it to his daughters and son-in-law and gifted a shop to the younger daughter, so he ceased to be owner and neither he nor his wife retained any right to seek eviction; it is for the transferees to initiate eviction proceedings if any. (¶¶ 25, 26)
- Where the son was paying the maintenance fixed by the Family Court, lived in a single room with bathroom, ran the family business from one shop, and no complaint of humiliation or interference had arisen after the Tribunal's order, eviction was not prudent; as a son he has an implied licence to live there, and the Tribunal rightly permitted him to stay subject to eviction proceedings if he misbehaves. A maintenance order with a restraint on harassment would have served the purpose. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 34)
Result
Civil appeal dismissed; the High Court's judgment dated 18.08.2023 setting aside the Appellate Tribunal's eviction order and maintaining the Maintenance Tribunal's other directions upheld as well considered, equitable and justified.