Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar, Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench
Appellate Tribunal Displayed Indifferent Attitude: Bombay High Court Allows Plea Of Elderly Couple; Directs Son & Daughter-In-Law To Vacate House
|The Bombay High Court remarked that the Petition filed by senior citizens, depicts the plight of the senior citizens who are required to contest litigations against their own son and daughter-in-law to enable them to enjoy their own house property.
The Bombay High Court has allowed a Writ Petition of an elderly couple aged 67 and 66 years respectively and directed their son and daughter-in-law to vacate the house property.
The Petition before the Aurangabad Bench challenged the Order of the Appellate Tribunal under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 by which it allowed the Appeal of daughter-in-law and rejected the Application of the senior couple.
A Single Bench of Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar observed, “It is thus evident that the Appellate Tribunal has adopted an unduly hyper-technical approach, thereby defeating the very object and purpose of the special statute, which is in the nature of beneficial legislation enacted to safeguard the rights and interests of senior citizens. Although vested with statutory powers under the said enactment, the Appellate Tribunal has displayed an indifferent attitude towards the issues raised by the senior citizens. In such circumstances, the impugned order is wholly unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside.”
The Bench remarked that this Petition, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution, filed by senior citizens, depicts the plight of the senior citizens who are required to contest litigations against their own son and daughter-in-law to enable them to enjoy their own house property.
Advocate N.S. Jaju appeared for the Petitioners while Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) M.L. Sangit appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Petitioners were aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Tribunal which set aside the Order passed by the Tribunal which had ordered eviction of the Respondents from the house owned by the Petitioners. The Petitioners had preferred an Application seeking eviction of the Respondents from the house owned by them. The Petitioners alleged that they allowed their son and daughter-in-law to reside in their home considering their immediate needs after their marriage.
However, after the daughter-in-law started frivolous litigations against them, they approached the Tribunal seeking eviction from their house. Their Application was allowed and the Respondents were directed to vacate the house within a period of 30 days. This Order was assailed by the daughter-in-law before the Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal and her Appeal was allowed. Being aggrieved by this, the Petitioners were before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “Both the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are statutory authorities constituted under this special enactment and are vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes concerning senior citizens. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the presiding officers of these forums to remain mindful of the objectives and legislative intent underlying the special statute. Moreover, they are duty-bound to acquaint themselves with the prevailing legal position, including the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts interpreting the provisions of this legislation, and to apply the same judiciously while deciding cases.”
The Court said that the instant case is an example where the parents were compelled to invoke the provisions of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to secure the protection granted to the senior citizens.
“In the instant case, the approach of the appellate tribunal, in not considering the authoritative pronouncement of this court delivered in the year 2018 (judgment of Dattatrey Mane), while deciding the appeal in the year 2020, demonstrates insensitivity on its part”, it further observed.
The Court was of the opinion that the conduct of daughter in-law which has constrained the Petitioners to initiate legal proceedings, warrants serious and thoughtful consideration.
“The appeal u/s 16 (1) was filed only by the respondent no.4. Although the respondent No.4 has contested the proceedings before the Tribunal and Appellate Authority, however, she has blatantly ignored the mandate of the order passed by this court. It has to be noted that despite a specific order passed by this Court on 21.12.2022, directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month towards occupation of the suit property from the date of order passed by the Tribunal, the same is not at all complied by them”, it added.
The Court also took note of the fact that the daughter-in-law continued to occupy the Petitioners’ home in absence of any right in her favour thereby compelling the Petitioners to indulge in litigations up to the High Court.
“This conduct on the part of respondent No.4 is deprecated. Since respondent No. 3 and 4 have failed to comply with the mandate of the order passed by this Court directing to pay Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of order of the Tribunal i.e. 18 February 2019, it is necessary in the interest of justice to direct the respondent No.3 and 4 to comply with the said order. Accordingly, the respondent no. 3 and 4 are directed to comply and pay to the petitioners the entire amount of arrears at the earliest and also to bear with the costs of the instant petition”, it directed.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the Appellate Tribunal’s Order, and directed the Respondents to vacate the house property of the Petitioners within 30 days.
Cause Title- Chandiram Anandram Hemnani & Anr. v. Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:15227)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates N.S. Jaju and P.P. Patni.
Respondents: AGP M.L. Sangit