NEW DELHI: In a case reflective of relationship issues that are unique to today’s times, Supreme Court has come to the relief of an 80-year-old man and his 78-year-old wife and ordered eviction of their 61-year-old son from two rooms owned by the man in Mumbai after he failed to provide them with maintenance, as mandated under the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2007.The octogenarian father and his wife had moved back to their native town in Uttar Pradesh after being pushed out of the properties – one room at Yadav Chawl in Yadav Nagar and another at Raju Estate, Bengali Chawl, Saki Naka — by their eldest son who was running a business there.In July 2023, they filed for maintenance and eviction of their son from the said properties before the tribunal concerned, which in June last year directed the man to hand over possession of both the rooms to his parents and also provide them with a monthly maintenance of Rs 3,000. The son’s challenge was rejected by the appellate tribunal. He then appealed against the eviction order in Bombay HC.The HC, on April 25, allowed the son’s petition on the ground that the tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to pass an order for vacation of property against a senior citizen, the son being over 60 years old. The parents moved the SC against the HC order.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta termed the Bombay high court order erroneous and highlighted that the man was 59 years old when his parents moved the tribunal under the 2007 Act, which was enacted to address the plight of the elderly and to ensure their care and protection. “Being a welfare legislation, its provisions must be construed liberally so as to advance its beneficent purpose. This Court on several occasions has observed that the Tribunal is well within its powers to order eviction of a child or a relative from the property of a senior citizen, when there is a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen,” the bench said.Asking the son to vacate the two rooms in Mumbai and hand over their possession to his parents by Nov 30, the bench said, “In the present case, despite being financially stable, the son has acted in breach of his statutory obligations in not allowing the parents to reside in the properties owned by the father, thereby frustrating the very object of the Act. The HC fell in error in allowing the writ petition on a completely untenable ground.”
