The Supreme Court has dismissed a special leave petition filed by a man challenging his eviction from his father's property under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The petitioner sought to overturn a Rajasthan High Court decision that upheld an eviction order passed by the maintenance tribunal in Bilara, Rajasthan, in favor of his senior citizen father.
Court's Strong Remarks
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice V. Mohana dismissed the petition after a brief hearing marked by pointed observations. Justice Nath remarked, "What kind of a son are you? Fighting with your own father!? It's very unfortunate. Go and take care of your father. Let him live in peace for whatever remainder period of his life."
When Advocate Varun Bhati, representing the petitioner, argued that his client also had a right over the disputed property, Justice Nath responded, "No. Next case." Bhati further submitted that the petitioner had a wife and a son to support, but the court declined to intervene and dismissed the petition.
Background of the Case
The matter involved a residential property in Bilara, Rajasthan. The petitioner claimed that the house was an ancestral and undivided family property, originally purchased in 1986 in the name of his grandmother. He argued that after her death, the property devolved upon multiple legal heirs and could not be treated as the exclusive property of his father. The petitioner contended that he had been residing in the premises with his wife and two children for years and held coparcenary and co-ownership rights, asserting that the eviction order effectively deprived his family of their only residence.
The father had approached the maintenance tribunal alleging harassment by his son and seeking protection to live peacefully in the house. The tribunal allowed the application in February 2024, directing the son to vacate the premises. This order was upheld by a Single Judge and later confirmed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.
Petitioner's Arguments
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the Senior Citizens Act should not be used as a substitute for civil court proceedings to decide contested questions of title, co-ownership, and inheritance. He contended that eviction under the Act is meant to be an exceptional remedy and not a tool for resolving complex family property disputes. The petition also raised concerns about the impact of eviction on the petitioner's wife and children, questioning whether a co-owner could be removed through summary proceedings without a comprehensive civil adjudication determining ownership rights.
Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court, however, found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's ruling and dismissed the petition, effectively affirming the eviction order in favor of the senior citizen father. The court emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of senior citizens under the Act, underscoring that such disputes should not be used to harass elderly parents.
About the Author: The TOI Legal Desk is a dedicated team of journalists committed to tracking and reporting on courts, legal developments, and judicial proceedings across the country and world.
