The Senior Citizens Act protects the rights of senior citizens against eviction and harassment by their children, affirming that children cannot assert property rights during the parents' lifetime.

JUDGMENT :

GAURI GODSE, J.

1. This petition takes an exception to the order passed by the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ('Senior Citizens Act'). By the impugned order, the application filed by respondent no. 2, under Section 5 read with Section 9 of the said Act is allowed and the petitioners are directed to vacate the residential premises and not claim any right in respect of the residential premises during the lifetime of respondent no. 2. The impugned order further directs the petitioners not to harass respondent no. 2 in any manner. The impugned order further directs petitioner no. 1 to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 4,000/- to respondent no. 2. Petitioner no. 1 is the son of respondent no. 2 and petitioner no. 2 is the wife of petitioner no. 1.

2. Respondent no. 2 on 26th August 2022 filed an application under Section 5 of the Senior Citizens Act, claiming monthly maintenance from petitioner no. 1 and for getting the peaceful and vacant possession of the residential premises. Respondent No. 2 was 69 years of age at the time of filing the application. Respondent No. 2, contended that her husband died on 27th June 2021 and after her husband's death petitioner no. 1 was given a job in Mumbai Municipal Corporation on compassionate basis. Respondent no. 2 contented that she as well as her three daughters had given no objection to granting service to petitioner no. 1 on compassionate basis after the death of her husband who was working with the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. Respondent No. 2, further contended that the residential premises belonged to her and she was occupying the same along with her husband and continued in possession of the same even after her husband's death. However, later on, petitioners started harassing her. Respondent no. 2 has in detail pleaded various conduct on the part of petitioners which has caused serious mental and physical harassment to her. It is contended that considering the conduct of the petitioners, respondent no. 2 was constrained to file a police complaint against both petitioners. Respondent no. 2 further contented that the harassment caused by the petitioners was to the extent that she was not even provided with proper food and was even unable to use the kitchen and bathroom in the residential premises. Respondent no. 2, further contended that only to cause harassment to her, petitioner no. 2, filed a false case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('D.V. Act') making allegations against respondent no. 2 and her daughters. Considering the harassment caused to respondent no. 2, she was constrained to file an application under the Senior Citizens Act. It was contended by respondent no. 2 that petitioner no. 1 had got the job on compassionate basis and was earning a handsome salary and was thus capable of taking care of himself and his family by residing at some other premises. The petitioners appeared in the said proceedings and opposed the said application.

3. The Tribunal has passed the impugned order directing the petitioners to vacate the residential premises and not to claim any right in the same during the lifetime of respondent no. 2. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners have preferred this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the tenancy of the residential premises was originally in the name of the grandfather of petitioner no. 1, even the petitioners are entitled to claim tenancy on the ground that they are tenants in-common along with respondent no. 2. It was further submitted that the petitioner no. 2 has initiated proceedings under the DV Act claiming right to reside in the residential premises on the ground that the residential premises are her shared household.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the ration card and electricity connection were transferred in the name of petitioner no. 1. However, respondent no. 2, illegally got them