JUDGMENT :

G.S. KULKARNI, J.

1. The plight of a benighted widowed mother, a senior citizen, to gain a roof over her head in a tenement of 300 sq. feet owned by her and the hard struggle faced by her from one of her sons, is the subject matter of the present unfortunate proceedings.

2. This is a writ petition arising out of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. An order dated 3 February 2018 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Parents and Senior Citizens Subsistence Tribunal, Mumbai City, is challenged in the present petition, by the petitioner, who is the son of respondent No. 2-Smt. Kusum Kisan Pawar who is a senior citizen (for short ‘the mother’). The mother approached the tribunal as constituted under Section 7 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Senior Citizens Act’) invoking its jurisdiction under Sections 4 and 5 read with Section 23 of the Act against the petitioner, inasmuch as, the mother was dishoused from her only abode being a small tenement admeasuring 300 sq. ft. being No. 209 Swapna Safalya Building, Dhan Mill Naka, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 (for short ‘the said tenement’).

3. The facts are quite peculiar and to some extent which would shock the conscience of the Court. There was an original tenement which was possessed by the petitioner’s father and respondent no. 2’s (the mother’s) husband-Kisan Rangu Pawar. The building in which such tenement existed was taken up for redevelopment and on completion of the redevelopment, Kisan Rangu Pawar would have become entitled to be housed in the redeveloped premises, that is the tenement in question. However, as Kisan expired, the landlord, namely, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation incorporated the mother’s name to be the tenant and permitted allotment of the redeveloped tenement in favour of the mother. The developer accordingly issued an allotment letter of the said tenement in favour of the mother, who was also put in possession of the said 300 sq. ft. tenement. At an old age, the said tenement is the only roof over the mother’s head. It is not in dispute that the mother all along was residing in the said tenement. She has four children, two sons (one of them being the petitioner) and two daughters. It appears that all the children are married.

4. It is matter of common knowledge that the tenement in question is located in a prime locality at Mumbai, namely, at Prabhadevi. This being the position, it appears that the petitioner to the exclusion of other siblings started asserting a right of residence on the said tenement belonging to the mother. The petitioner in such pursuit, along with his family members foisted himself on the mother, who was occupying the said tenement and appears to have entered the tenement on a specious ground that his children are taking education in a nearby school.

5. It is quite evident from the record that the petitioner at all material times was aware that the tenement exclusively belonged to the mother. The petitioner appeared to be aware that at least during the lifetime of the mother, the petitioner and other siblings would not have any right to seek occupation or possession of the tenement. On this backdrop, the petitioner thought of a novel method to dishouse the mother of the tenement. This, by taking advantage of her old age, her lack of education and that she being not literate and benighted, by entering into a rent agreement with the mother. The rent agreement was part of the record before the Tribunal as is also before this Court. The rent agreement in fact militates against the position taken by the petitioner in purportedly asserting independent rights qua the tenement, which would be discussed little later.

6. Under the rent agreement, the petitioner agreed to pay the mother a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- which he never paid. The rent agreement was executed on 18 June 2016 for a period from 1 July 2016 to 31 May 2017, being a period of 11 months. Du