Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

mayuri (pls dnt ask)     21 November 2012

Removing tennant on the basis of the tenant's 3 yr old child

The case is this-

A divorcee woman, who had declared her marital status before the housing society and had got NOC from them, shift to the said housing society on a 11 month's leave and lisence agreement. She had also declared that she had a 3 year old child who lived with her, along with her old parents(serior citizens). After a month, the people living right below her floor (a woman nearing her 50s and a son who says he studies in XII class), came upstairs and started shouting that her child walks too much and that she should control her child. They shouted at her and her parentsand created a scene for a whole one hour, until finally, the woman refused to listen to their nonsense and closed the door through which they were speaking.

The very next day, in the afternoon, when the woman was away at work, these two came to her house again and shouted at the woman's parents and threatened to unleash their dogs on the woman and her parents if the child didnot stop walking in the house. The person living right opposite the house then came out, and started at shout at the older couple saying that they donot know how to behave and that they donot know how to control a child and abuseing them in general. When the woman heard of the situation, she tried to pacify all the parties by trying to talk to the people living downstairs and explaining to them that any child, below the age of 6, doesnot have the sense to understand how to walk softly. She tried to explain that this learning takes some time, and to be patient as she is slowly trying to teach her child about all this. Instead of being pacified, these people started saying that the child should be trained by keeping her hungry for the whole day if she "walks loudly". Then, the woman, fearing the safety of herself and her family, went to the chairman to report the vsituation. She gave a written complaint, but the Chairman refused to give acknowledgement for the same, and gave her an empty assurance that she and her family will be safe. However, veiled in this promise, he also softly threatened that if the incident re-occurred, he will ask the house owner to make her vacate the house.

seeing the situation, the woman started sending heer child to day care directly after her school time, and taking her out of the day care only when she herself returned from her job.

After this, for two months, due to some domestic matters, her parents and her daughter went away to her home place. Just 1 week after their return, the people of the flat just below her's, came again at 10.30 in the night, shouting ofensive names and the son making obsence body gestures, all on the pretext that the child walks about the house too much. This time, fearing her security, the lady called the Police. When the son senced that the Police is coming, he and his mother immidiately went inside their own house.

After telling the Police the whole story, the woman requested that her safety be taken care of. The Police asked her to file a written complaint, but the woman didnot want to spoil the son's career prospects fearing that might provoke the son to convert his threats to realty and her and/or her family some bodily harm.

The next day, when she was returning home after dropping her child to school,the housing society's chairman called out to her scolding her publically for calling the police, and telling that he doesnot want divorcee women in the society and that she is not a nivce woman. He told her to come to the society office at 9.30 pm for a meeting. She tried to call her flat owner after this for the whole day, but he didnot attend her calls, nor did he return them. 

As soon as she and her father entered the office at the appointed time, she was told very rudely that she has to leave the society. During the whole conversation, he refused to listen to her or her father, and kept on saying that since she was a divorcee, so she would create problems.

does the housing society or the concerned house owner have a right to remove a tenant for any or all of the following reasons-

a. the tenant is a divorcee woman, specially when the fact had already been declared by her while taking the flat and the housing society had given her NOC?

b. the tenant's child (under 6 yrs old) is walking/running in her own house?

c. the people living below the tenant's flat threaten her and her family and create a scene in front of her door step even when she closes the door on seeing their offensive behaviour?

Of course, the most secure thing for her was to find another accomodation, which is what she did. However, did she have the right to object/ oppose the stand of the housing society?



 1 Replies

Sudhir Kumar (Dy Director)     24 November 2012

Read the problem.

You question is that

does the housing society or the concerned house owner have a right to remove a tenant for any or all of the following reasons-

a. the tenant is a divorcee woman, especially when the fact had already been declared by her while taking the flat and the housing society had given her NOC?

b. the tenant's child (under 6 yrs old) is walking/running in her own house?

c. the people living below the tenant's flat threaten her and her family and create a scene in front of her door step even when she closes the door on seeing their offensive behavior?

Of course, the most secure thing for her was to find another accommodation, which is what she did. However, did she have the right to object/ oppose the stand of the housing society?

 

The only fault of the lady is that she has refused to give written complaint to the police when police requested.  This way she rendered the police helpless and the intention of not spoiling the things have already gone beyond her.  The relations have got spoiled.  The following behavior narrated in the story is beyond believed as generally does not happen :-

 

(i)                 Picking up antiquates problems with three year old child.  The victim has a justification to move to National commission for Protection of Rights of child.

 

(ii)               Mother encouraging young boy to pass obscene jextures and language to a neighbor woman. The victim has justification to give complaint to CAW cell which act more effectively than local thana.

 

(iii)             Threatening to unleash dogs.  This is case under various criminal provisions. 

 

 

(iv)             People misbehaving with elderly persons particularly when police has got strict orders to take care of senior citizens.  The SHO is bound to act when given a complaint.

 

(v)               Asking a woman to leave society simply because she is the divorcee.  They lady appear to be gentle.  Otherwise normally a woman in such situation will responded by saying “apaki beti ko divorce ke bad nikal dena”  “apkee bahu widow ho jaye to nikal dena”.  I am sure she may not be the only divorcee in the society.

 

As far as office bearers of the societies and RWAs are concerned they do not know that they do not head any Gram Panchayat and has no administrative or judicial powers.  Generally they are idle person mostly retired from petty posts or in some cases they are estate agents in disguise.  They  keep certain liaison with local police but police has reputation to saying “hum apke hain kaun when someone is accused”. The moment they have to apply for bail they will not feel like contesting again. Some of them do not have resources to fight litigation and assume office for the sake of free newspapers, free misuse of guards etc.

They do not have any powers to threat someone with eviction.  They have invited action by NCW.   They do not have powers to object someone calling police.  This way they are obstructing someone with the Fundamental Rights to constitutional remedies.  Person affected by crime has a right to call the police and police is bound and empowered to come wherever crime is reported and instances are there that they even enter military quarters when need be. So the society President has invited criminal action by compelling her to drop recourse to police and by abetting the crimes of her neighbors.

 

They way she avoids giving complaint she will be running one society after the other. But she has to give complaint. 

 

Even Bhagwan Ram himself incarnatin of god has refused passage by sea until he aimed angi ban  despite being a Maryada Purshottam.  It is written in ramacharitmanas “vinay n mane jaladhi jad diwas tin geye beet.  Bole ram sakope tab bhay bin hot na preet”.

 

 But at presentshe is on defensive as she decline to give written complainto police which is the initial action a lanching pad for moving to various bodies.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query