The Chhattisgarh High Court while deciding a case relating to the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 upheld the order of eviction passed by the Tribunal directing the petitioner to vacate the house of his parents.

The Court while finding no error in the eviction order said that the petitioner is bound to obey the order of his parents.

A Single Bench of Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari held, “… this Court does not find any error in the order of eviction passed by the appellate Court directing the petitioner to vacate the house within a period of 7 days from the date of the order. When the parents, who are owners of the house, withdraw permission to reside in the house, in that case, the petitioner is bound to obey the order of parents, and respondent No.4-father cannot be asked to file traditional suit of eviction against his own son.”

The Bench also relied upon the decision in the case of Dattatrey Shivaji Mane Vs. Leelabai Shivaji Mane & Others {2018 (6) MHLJ 681} in which the submission that the order of eviction cannot be passed by the Tribunal under Section 4 of the Senior Citizens Act read with other provisions of the Act, 2007, was turned down.

Advocate Kshitij Sharma appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Panel Lawyer Shakti Singh Thakur and Advocate Sanjay Agrawal appeared for the respondents.

Brief Facts –

The father of the petitioner filed an application under Sections 5 & 32 of the Senior Citizens Act claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- from his son and eviction from the house alleging that the same was under his proprietorship. Since 2009 the petitioner and his wife were continuously harassing and abusing his father in filthy language and threatened to oust him from his own house and thereafter ousted him from his house.

The petitioner was alleged to have been neglecting and refusing to maintain his father in respect of food and treatment and threatened to lodge an FIR if he enters his own house. He was getting a salary of Rs.50,000/- per month and was capable to maintain his father. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,000 and passed an order of eviction and then the Collector also ordered the petitioner to vacate the house.

The High Court after hearing both the parties asserted, “… considering the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.4 that he is getting pension, part of the order whereby maintenance of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded, is hereby set aside.”

The Court also noted that the object of the Act is to give social justice to parents and senior citizens.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the order of eviction.

Cause Title- Neeraj Baghel v. The Collector Raipur & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment