Senior Citizens Act | Son Can't Claim Right To Residence In Building Owned By Father, By Virtue Of Their Relationship Alone: Patna High Court

While dealing with a case under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the Patna High Court has ruled that simply by virtue of their relationship, a son does not have the right to claim residence in a property solely owned by his father.Considering the son's involvement in a productive occupation, his earning capacity, and his ability to afford rental expenses in the case at hand, a division bench of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy said a son who has forcibly occupied the house of his elderly parents would be liable to pay monthly rent.It then set aside the order of the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act for son's eviction and remanded the matter to concerned District Magistrate to conduct an inquiry as to the reasonable rent that could be generated from rooms occupied by the son and pass an order directing him to pay the same by way of regular remittances in the account of the father.“As of now, since there is no injunction against the exclusive possession of the 8 th respondent [father], the 1st appellant [son] cannot claim any right of residence in the building as a co-owner, just as the father, a senior citizen, cannot seek eviction from the separate residence of the son in a building owned by him, under the Senior Citizens Act. The son also cannot claim a right to residence in a building exclusively owned by the father, by virtue of their relationship alone.”In the case at hand, RP Roy, the complainant and owner of a guest house, asserted that his youngest son, Ravi [appellant], forcibly took control of three rooms in the guest house. This action, as per Roy, resulted in the deprivation of both rental income and residential accommodation, specifically one room that Roy had been utilizing. The complaint was filed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, and it implicated the appellant's wife as an unauthorized occupant of the mentioned property.Roy contended that his youngest son, the appellant, not only took possession of three guest house rooms but also caused financial harm by withholding rental income and denying him residence in one of the rooms. Additionally, Roy alleged harassment by the appellant through baseless legal actions initiated by the appellant's wife. Following these allegations, the tribunal had issued an eviction order against the appellant, determining that the guest house in question is a leased property belonging to Roy, who qualifies as a senior citizen under the law.The appellants asserted that the Tribunal did not possess the jurisdiction to consider the eviction request. They argued that Roy had other sources of support and emphasized that the property in question belonged to a joint Hindu family.Contrary to this, the Roy argued that he was dependent on the rental income from the rest house, as he and his wife resided in a rented flat. Additionally, the appellants were accused of harassment and illegal occupation of rooms in the rest house.The Court noted, "The parents and the son and his family are residing in different places, the former at a rented accommodation and the latter in the rest house occupying three rooms; though there is allegation of harassment and nuisance. The fact that the parents and the son and his family are not living in one building would not enable a prayer for eviction. The rest house, which is a separate building is where the son resides with his family."The High Court noted that there were no grounds justifying eviction by the Tribunal established under the Act. In this context, the Court opined, "there could be no eviction ordered under the Senior Citizens Act since the claim is not under Section 23(1). The claim of the 8th respondent before the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, if at all coming under Section 23(2) of the Act, there can only be an enforcement of the right of maintenance from the property. An occupation whether it is permissive or an encroachment would have the trappings of a transfer, which would dis-entitle the owner of the property from the maintenance by way of rental income generated from the occupied rooms in the rest house."Appearance :For the Appellant/s: Mr. Syed Alamdar Hussain, Advocate, Ms. Surya Nilambari, AdvocateFor the State: Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, AC to AAG-3, For the Respondent no.8 : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Smriti Singh, Advocate, Mr. Vipin Kr. Singh, AdvocateCase Title: Ravi Shankar and Anr vs The State of Bihar and OrsLL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 03Case No.: Letters Patent Appeal No.907 of 2023Click Here To Read / Download Judgement

Senior Citizens Act | Son Can't Claim Right To Residence In Building Owned By Father, By Virtue Of Their Relationship Alone: Patna High Court

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Senior Citizens Act | Son Can't Claim Right To Residence In Building Owned By Father, By Virtue Of Their Relationship Alone: Patna High Court

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers