IMPORTANT POINT
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 by father, by virtue of their relationship alone.

JUDGMENT (CAV)

K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—Law and morality regulate and control human behaviour in society. Though complementary, when morality is infused into legislation, the legislatures have to caution themselves from overstepping the legal premise and the Courts have the daunting task of avoiding a judicial overreach hinged only on popular notions of right and wrong. That parents have to be looked after by children require no legislative imprimatur but in deciding property rights, we should be conscious of the interplay of such rights regulated by various statutes.

2. The order impugned in the appeal is one affirming the order issued by the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Senior Citizens Act). The 8th respondent, who was the father of the first appellant was before the Tribunal seeking eviction of the 1st appellant & his wife-the 2nd appellant, who were residing in the rest house owned by the 8th respondent; the rent received from which is asserted to be the only income of the 8th respondent.

3. The petitioners in the writ petition, appellants herein, claimed that the prayers made by the 8th respondent, the applicant under the Senior Citizens Act, could not have been made since there was total lack of jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal under that Act to evict the son and his family who were residing in the rest house; a permissive occupation or even if it is alleged to be a trespass. It was argued by the appellants that problems arose within the family due to the marriage of the appellants, solemnized on 14.06.2018, which was not to the liking of the 1st appellant’s parents. The appellants also contended that there was no prayer for maintenance made by the 8th respondent, who had sufficient means to look after himself. The residence of the appellants and their daughter in the three rooms in the rest house does not in any manner prejudice the 8th respondent. The 8th respondent is deprived only of the rent of the said rooms and he continues to collect the rent from the other 20 residential rooms and 21 shop rooms situated in the very same building. The appellants also have a case that the rest house is one purchased by the father, the 8th respondent, from out of the funds of the joint Hindu family to which they belonged and there is a partition suit filed by the 1st appellant; which makes him a co-owner entitled to reside in the premises.

4. The 8th respondent on the other hand points out that the first petitioner is well employed and the second petitioner is a professional, an Advocate, who can look after themselves and even rent out an accommodation. The 8th respondent asserted that he and his wife, in their old age, with multiple ailments, are forced to live in a rented flat and he earns only a meagre pension, thus being wholly dependent on the income from the rest house. Allegation is raised that both the appellants are troublemakers and have been harassing their parents continuously and now, by occupying three rooms in the rest house, to which they can raise no valid claim. The rest house at Kankarbagh, Patna is a self-acquired property of the 8th respondent allotted by the Bihar State Housing Board, Patna by a perpetual lease dated 20.07.1992, in favour of the 8th respondent. The 1st appellant requested a room for his sole residence from the 8th respondent, which was permitted, after which he moved in along with his wife and child and captured the entire rest house. The specific contention also is that they captured room no. 209 of the rest house and later on broke the locks of two more rooms and are residing there illegally.

5. The 2nd appellant is alleged to be a constant troublemaker, even for her family; having lodged criminal complaints against her own mother. The 2nd appellant also lodged criminal complaints against her in-laws and there is also a complaint lodged against her by the 8th respondent. The partition suit said to have