Senior citizens’ tribunal can’t outright evict children, relatives: Bombay HC

The court said in S Vanitha’s case, the Supreme Court has taken the view that the tribunal may have the authority to order an eviction if it is necessary to ensure protection of the senior citizen

The Bombay high court (HC) has held that the Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens cannot outrightly order the eviction of children and other relatives from common residence without first determining a competing set of claims as regards ownership rights in the residential premises.

The court was hearing the petition filed by a Malabar Hill resident challenging a 2020 order by the Mumbai City Senior Citizen Tribunal ordering her, her husband to vacate their residence on Gibbs Road along with their minor daughter. (HT File)

The division bench of justice Ujjal Bhuyan and justice Madhav Jamdar said in S Vanitha’s case, the Supreme Court (SC) has taken the view that the Senior Citizens Tribunal may have the authority to order an eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parent.

“Eviction, in other words, would be incidental to the enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection,” said the bench. “However, this relief can be granted only after adverting to the competing claims in the dispute.”

The court was hearing the petition filed by a Malabar Hill resident challenging December 15, 2020 order passed by the Mumbai City Senior Citizen Tribunal ordering her, her husband to vacate their residence on Gibbs Road along with their minor daughter.

The order had come on a complaint filed by the petitioner’s widowed mother-in-law in April 2019, complaining of ill-treatment and torture at the hands of her son and daughter-in-law, which had forced her to leave the Gibbs Road residence.

The petitioner woman, on the other hand, claimed before HC that her husband was suffering from mental illness and was unable to earn anything and that she alone had to maintain him and her daughter. Apart from refuting the allegations, the petitioner claimed that her mother-in-law intended to dispose of the Gibbs Road flat and therefore wanted them to vacate the premises.

It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal did not take into consideration her husband’s 20℅ shares in the flat and her right to reside in the shared household, under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005.

HC accepted her contentions and struck down the Tribunal order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The court said it was essential for the Tribunal to first arrive at a conclusion, as to whether the flat in question was an ancestral property or exclusively owned by the mother-in-law.

“Though the procedure contemplated under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is summary in nature nonetheless the Tribunal is required to find out as to whether the flat in question belongs exclusively to respondent No. 1 (mother-in-law) or it is an ancestral property where the petitioner also has a right to ownership and/or residence through her husband,” court said.

HC felt that the tribunal was also required to deal with the contention of the petitioner woman that the flat in question is her shared household wherefrom she cannot be evicted. “It is in the backdrop of the above that the claims of the contesting parties would have to be decided which unfortunately does not appear to be the case in the instant proceeding.”