Delhi High Court has held that senior citizens, who seek eviction of their sons or legal heirs from their property, needn't necessarily have to show that they need maintenance or that they have been ill treated by their heirs.
Interpreting the social welfare law for senior citizens, the Single Bench of Navin Chawla noted that scope of the proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as also the Rules is to grant protection to the parents, including with respect to their property.
'The scope of this Act is not to punish the children and therefore, once it is established that the children have no right over the property of the parents, the fact that the parents do not wish to have their children staying with them is enough for invoking the Act and the Rules', the court noted.
The present order has come in a petition moved by the son and the grandson of the Respondents, challenging the eviction order dated 20/02/20 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Rules, 2009.
The Petitioner primarily argued that the suit property does not belong exclusively to the Respondents but is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property, wherein the Petitioner also has a share being a co-parcenar.
Further, the Petitioner also argued that there's no proof of ill treatment of the Respondents by the Petitioner.
While rejecting the claim of the Petitioner, the court relied upon its previous judgment in Smt Darshana v. GNCTD, wherein it was held that it is apparent from the plain language of Rule 22(3)(1)(i) that a senior citizen is also entitled to evict his son,
daughter or legal heir from his property irrespective of whether it is an ancestral or self-acquired property.
While accessing the second claim of the Petitioner, the court observed that the Respondents had initiated various civil and criminal proceedings against the Petitioner.
'No parent is expected to initiate such proceedings against their own children only out of vengeance or from some mala fide intents', the court observed.
Finally the court took note of its various other judgments to hold that a senior citizen is merely to show that his property needs protection and need not necessarily have to show that he/she needs maintenance or has been ill-treated by the son or other legal heir.