Point of Law : Entitlements of a woman to a right in a shared household - Right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting summary procedure under Senior Citizens Act 2007.

JUDGMENT :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Heard Mr. Kishor Maru, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anoshak Daver, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. Both petitioner and respondent No.1 were also present in person during the hearing.

3. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the legality and validity of the order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the Deputy District Collector, Mumbai City acting as the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens.

4. Respondent No.1 is the mother-in-law of the petitioner. Petitioner alongwith her husband Mr. Prashant Niranjan Jasani and minor daughter Samaira are residing in the flat bearing flat No.81A, Acropolis, 3 Little Gibbs Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai (henceforth referred to as “the flat” hereinafter) along with respondent No.1. The said flat originally belonged to Mr. Anandlal Jasani, who during his lifetime made nomination in respect of the said flat whereby twenty percent share of the flat was granted in favour of petitioner’s husband Mr. Prashant Niranjan Jasani.

5. Mr. Anandlal Jasani died in the year 2007 whereafter his son Mr. Niranjan Anandlal Jasani, Mrs. Anjana Niranjan Jasani and Mr. Prashant Niranjan Jasani alongwith other legal heirs of the deceased Mr. Anandlal Jasani were entitled to equal rights and shares in the said flat.

6. Be it stated that Mr. Niranjan Anandlal Jasani is the father-in-law of the petitioner i.e. father of Mr. Prashant Jasani and husband of Anjana Niranjan Jasani i.e. respondent No.1.

7. Since her marriage with Mr. Prashant Jasani, petitioner has been residing in the said flat alongwith respondent No.1 and the late Niranjan Anandlal Jasani till his death. Be it stated that Mr. Niranjan Anandlal Jasani died intestate at Mumbai on 11.04.2016. Therefore, petitioner claims the said flat to be her matrimonial home as well as her shared household. Petitioner, her husband, daughter and respondent No.1 are residing in the said flat.

8. It is stated that petitioner and respondent No.1 earns income mainly from the following sources :

1. Rent from the office premises at Arun Chamber, Tardeo for Rs.35,000/-per month;

2. From the interest accrued on the shares which would be about Rs.30,000/-per month;

3. Respondent No.1 is carrying on catering business on a limited scale earning therefrom Rs.10,000/-to Rs.15,000/-per month.

8.1. Petitioner has stated that her husband Prashant Niranjan Jasani is suffering from mental illness and depression because of which he requires regular treatment and counseling. He is not in a position to contribute to the earnings of the family.

8.2. Allegation of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 wants to sell the said flat and thereafter to retain the sale consideration to herself so as to enable her to lead an affluent lifestyle. Petitioner and her husband are opposed to selling of the flat. Petitioner states that the said flat is not self acquired property of respondent No.1; rather it is an ancestral property of the family of the petitioner’s husband wherein petitioner’s husband, petitioner and their minor daughter have equal right, title and interest.

8.3. Respondent No.1 with an oblique motive to oust the petitioner, her husband and minor daughter from the flat filed a complaint dated 26.04.2019 before the Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (briefly “the Tribunal” hereafter) for eviction of the petitioner and her husband Prashant Jasani from the flat so as to allow her to reside in the flat all by herself.

8.4. Petitioner filed her objection dated 08.12.2020. She denied all the allegations levelled against her and her husband by respondent No.1. According to her, respondent No.1 has high expectations from life and she has always loved luxury. She has very rich friends and her daughters are also extremely rich. Respondent No.1 looks down upon the petitioner and her husband as they do not have high income and are not upto her standard. After the death of father-in-law, re