Son cannot insist on staying in father's house saying he has contributed to renovation - Eviction order under Senior Citizens Act upheld
Anil Kumar Dhiman and another Vs State of Haryana and others
Punjab and Haryana HC
About/from the judgment:
The High Court recently upheld an eviction order passed against a son and his wife at the instance of the father under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act).
In this case, the father had not transferred the house in question to the son by way of gift or any other deed. The son sought to maintain the claim by saying that he had contributed to the renovation of the ground floor of the house.
The Court held that the son cannot insist that he has the right to stay in his father's home by saying that he has contributed to the renovation of the house.
"...the petitioners cannot maintain their claim on the alleged ground that petitioner No.1 had contributed towards the renovation of the house", the Court observed.
The Court underscored that when children throw their parents at the mercy of their destiny and use their muscle power to torture and harass them, then parents' world gets totally shattered.
"They become helpless from all sides and thus, begins the unfortunate tale of their moving from one Forum to another for redressal of their grievance(s)....Life is full with extraordinary challenges and unrivalled opportunities, but such chances must not be used against those, who parented you. With the birth of the children, the parents feel the paramount bliss of the Supreme Power and thank Him," the Court observed.
The Bench also quoted from Guru Granth Sahib while stating that children should treat their parents as God
"In the holy script of Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Sri Guru Ram Dass has written 'KAAHAY POOT JHAGRAT HA-O SANG BAAP/ JIN KAY JANAY BADEERAY TUM HA-O TIN SIO JHAGRAT PAPP//" (O son, why do you argue with your father? It is a sin to argue with the one who fathered you and raised you). The above words of prudence guide us that we have to treat our parents as God," the Court said.
The facts in brief
The Court was hearing a criminal writ petition filed by the petitioners( son and his wife) seeking to to dismiss the application filed by respondent No.4 (father) under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, whereby the petitioners had been ordered to be ejected from the house in question.
The application of the father was made to evict his son and daughter-in-law on the ground that the petitioners were not treating him and his wife properly and were depriving them even of the basic necessities and they also wanted to grab the property.
On their application, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thanesar noted that the father was the owner of the house and in his report, he recommended ejectment of the petitioners and sent the same to the office of the District Magistrate.
Pursuant to this, DM, Kurukshetra via an order dated July 17, 2019, had ordered the ejectment of the petitioners from the house in question.
It was claimed by the petitioners that the house in question was a joint Hindu family property and therefore, they couldn't have been evicted from the house in question and that he had contributed towards its renovation.
However, respondent number 4 (father) contended that the house in question is his self-acquired property, and rather it is not a joint Hindu family property. The
Referring to Section 23 of the 2007 Act, the Court observed that this provision provides thus:
"if a senior citizen who, after the commencement of the 2007 Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, with the condition that the transferee would provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor, who thereafter refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, then the transfer of the property made by the senior citizen shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor, be declared void by the Tribunal."
The Court further referred to the Act to conclude that there is a provision for eviction in the 2007 Act. Against this backdrop, the Court HELD thus:
"Besides, the instant is not a case wherein any transfer or gift has been executed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in favour of the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners cannot maintain their claim on the alleged ground that petitioner No.1 had contributed towards the renovation of the house."
Thus, in view of the above discussion, the Court did not find any merit in the present petition and hence, the same was dismissed.
Read the Judgment
Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law-related blogs and websites, we, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, Lawctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc.. Many of the judgments are also taken from them websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!