Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Basant Balaji, J.
Pramod.V., S/o. Devu - Appellant
Vs.
Vimala.V, D/o. Chirutha - Respondent
WP(C) NO. 26692 Of 2021
Decided On : 24-07-2024
MAINTENANCE - EVICTION OF PETITIONER - MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007 - SECTION 23 - The court discussed Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which allows a senior citizen to declare a property transfer void if the transferee fails to provide basic amenities. The court interpreted that the petitioner, being a distant relative, does not fall under the definition of 'relative' as per the Act, thus the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order eviction. The court emphasized that the Tribunal's powers are limited and cannot extend to eviction orders, which must be pursued through civil courts. This interpretation influenced the court's decision to quash the eviction order.
Fact of the Case:
The 1st respondent sought eviction of the petitioner from a house owned by her and her sister, claiming the petitioner had been residing there for 13 years with permission. The 1st respondent intended to sell the property to pay off debts incurred due to her husband's medical treatment. The petitioner challenged the eviction order issued by the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, being a distant relative, did not qualify as a 'relative' under the Act, and thus the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to issue an eviction order. The court noted that the Tribunal's powers are limited to maintenance issues and cannot extend to eviction, which must be handled by civil courts.
Issues: Whether the Maintenance Tribunal had jurisdiction to order the eviction of the petitioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, given the petitioner's status as a distant relative.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Maintenance Tribunal's jurisdiction is restricted to matters of maintenance and does not extend to eviction orders. The definition of 'relative' under the Act excludes the petitioner, thereby rendering the Tribunal's order void.
Final Decision: The court quashed the eviction order issued by the Maintenance Tribunal, allowing the writ petition and stating that the 1st respondent could pursue eviction through the civil court.
JUDGMENT :
The 2nd respondent, on behalf of the 1st respondent, preferred a complaint before the 3rd respondent seeking eviction of the petitioner from the house owned by the 1st respondent and her sister Prasanna. 16 cents of land in Survey No.94/109 and a house belong to her and to Prasanna and the petitioner is residing there for 13 years with their permission. The 1st respondent wants to sell the property to liquidate her debts, but the petitioner is not surrendering it to her. Therefore, she preferred a complaint seeking a direction to the petitioner to surrender the house. The 1st respondent also filed a suit as O.S. No.116/2020 before the Munsiff court, Thalassery on 9.3.2020 for evicting the petitioner. The petitioner filed a written statement as Ext.P2 on 22.1.2021. While so, the first respondent filed M.C.C.No. 32/2020 before the 3rd respondent under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act’) and the 3rd respondent passed Ext.P3 order on 13.9.2021 directing the petitioner to give vacant possession of the building in Survey No.94/109 with the 16 cents of property. It is also directed that the petitioner be granted 4 cents of property, out 16 cents on payment of Rs.2 lakhs. Petitioner challenges Ext.P3 in this Writ Petition.
2. A counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent in which it is stated that 16 cents of property, with a house situated in the said property, are in the joint possession of the 1st respondent and her sister. The petitioner, who is a distant relative, has been residing in the above house from 2014 onwards as permitted. Since the husband of the 1st respondent passed away, she had to incur huge debt which occasioned due to the treatment of her husband and therefore, she has decided to dispose the house property to pay off the debt. In the said situation, the petitioner was directed to vacate the house to enable the 1st respondent sell the property. Invoking the provisions of the Act, the Maintenance Tribunal was approached by the 2nd respondent.
3. On getting notice, the petitioner entered appearance and the matter was settled between the parties in the presence of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. The petitioner agreed to give vacant possession of the house on condition that 4 cents of property out of 16 cents, is given to him for a consideration of Rs.2 lakhs. It is admitted that O.S.No.116 of 2020 is filed against the petitioner for eviction. The Tribunal has the power to deal the properties of senior citizens. Ext.P3 order is passed as agreed by the petitioner. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the Writ Petition.
4. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal has only the power under section 23 of the Act to declare any transfer of property effected by senior citizens to be void and another section that can be invoked under the Act is Section 5, which deals with Application for maintenance. In the petition filed before the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent had sought a prayer to evict the petitioner from the house. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the apex court in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi [2022 (7) KHC 637], whereby the apex court held that the Tribunal can invoke the power under Section 23 of the Act if two conditions enumerated in the Section are attracted; (a) The transfer must have been made subject to the conditions that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and the basic physical needs to the transferor and (b) the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor. If both the conditions are satisfied, by a legal fiction, the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence and such a transfer then becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transferer as void. He also relied on a judgment of a full bench of this court in Subhashini v. District
The Maintenance Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to order eviction of a distant relative under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, as the Act's provisions apply only to c....
The court established that under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, eviction can be ordered to enforce maintenance rights of senior citizens when the transferee fails to ....
Eviction of petitioners from property owned by senior citizens was impermissible without sufficient justification under the Senior Citizens Act, reinforcing that such decisions must prioritize the we....
The Assistant Commissioner has the authority to issue eviction orders under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, especially to ensure the protection and maintenance o....
Senior citizen, cannot seek eviction from separate residence of son in a building owned by him, under Senior Citizens Act – Son also cannot claim a right to residence in a building exclusively owned ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 23(2) of the Senior Citizens Act, which empowers the Tribunal to order eviction of the occupant fr....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
