The Patna High Court’s division judge bench ruled that the son’s relationship with his father does not give him the right to live in a structure that is solely his property. According to the case’s factual matrix, respondent (the father of appellant No. 1) owned the rent house where appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were living, and the respondent’s only source of income was the rent from that property. In order to obtain the first and second appellants’ removal from the rental home, the respondent filed an application with the tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (henceforth referred to as the Act). Following that, the tribunal issued the eviction order, which was upheld by the bench of one judge and gave rise to the current writ petition.
The appellant argued that neither the State of Bihar Rules nor the Senior Citizens Act gave the Tribunal the authority to evict anyone. Additionally, because the respondent purchased the estate using money from the Hindu Undivided Family, a title dispute was brought. When it was determined that the title suit contained no viable claims, the learned single judge erred. This was a claim that should have been brought up in the lawsuit itself, not in the Tribunal’s summary procedure or in a judicial review, which is what this Court is currently doing. He has the right to occupy the guest house’s grounds since he is one of its co-owners. Finally, it was argued that there could be no complaint of harassment or physical assault because the respondent and the appellants were not living together at the time.
Respondent argued that the Act’s goal is to protect elderly people and their belongings, which in this instance necessitates an instant eviction. Furthermore, there is no need for the appellants to occupy three rooms in a guest home that generates revenue for the respondent, given that they have sufficient means to support themselves. The respondent, a retired worker, relies solely on the rental income from the guest house to supplement his meagre pension and provide for his spouse. The respondent and his wife are entitled to demand that the appellants be evicted from the guest home, which is their only source of income, in accordance with the Senior persons Act, which provides a timely and effective remedy insofar as the protection of senior persons’ life and property is concerned. Ultimately, the argument was made that the tribunal’s act-based order was fully within its authority.
The son and his family occupy three rooms at the rest home, while the parents reside in a rented property, the Honourable Court noted, despite the claims of harassment and mayhem. Since the father and son don’t live in the same building, it isn’t feasible to pray for the son’s eviction. Because of their relationship alone, the son is not entitled to live in a building that is solely owned by the father. Furthermore, it was noted that no eviction could be carried out under the Senior Citizens Act (1) because the claim did not come within Section 23. According to the eighth respondent’s Senior Citizens Act claim before the Tribunal, only the entitlement of upkeep from the property may be implemented, provided that it complies with Section 23(2) of the Act. A licenced or encroaching occupation would appear to be a transfer, relieving the property owner of their obligation to maintain the asset by collecting rent from the rest house’s occupied rooms. Taking these factors into account, the court reversed the learned single judge’s decision and the Tribunal’s order for eviction under the Senior Citizens Act, sending the case back to the Patna district magistrate. The respondent would have the right to file for eviction in a civil court if desired, the court stated, and ordered the appellants to pay a reasonable rent that will be set by the District Judge. The court granted the appeal under the previously stated directive.