Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

  • The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan (HC) in Vinod Sharma v Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors, observed that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Sr. Citizens Act)does not envisage an order of eviction neither by the District Magistrate nor the Tribunal.  
  • Appeal before the HC arose due to the direction of the Tribunal relating to the eviction of the Petitioner and Respondents 3 & 4 who had been residing in the house of the Respondents.  
  • The question before the HC was whether pursuant to an application filed under Section 5 of the Sr. Citizens Act, read with Rajasthan Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2010(the Rules), can an order of eviction be passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Sr. Citizens Act.  
  • Brief facts are that the Respondents, aged parents, filed an application under Section 5(A)(B) of the Sr. Citizens Act alleging that their children (Petitioners) are neither taking their care nor maintaining them. The application also sought eviction of the Petitioners from residential house.  
  • The contention of the Petitioner was that, the Respondents, despite having sufficient means to meet their ends, filed the instant petition with an intention to only harass the Petitioners and that the impugned order to the extent of forceful eviction of the Petitioner is illegal and fundamentally without jurisdiction.  
  • The Petitioner argued that unless there were pleadings asserting execution of a gift-deed and consequent transfer of property, the Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction and issue an order of eviction.
  • Hearing the contention of both the sides and examining various precedents, the Court observed that Section 4 and 5 of the Sr. Citizens Act were meant to ensure that senior citizens were provided with sufficient mean to live with dignity and by no means, direct or indirect, do the provisions refer to eviction or contemplate any such order by the Tribunal.  
  • The Court also observed that the eviction order could not be passed by taking a re-course under Rule 20 of the Rules as the Rules only provide for ensuring the protection of life and property of the senior citizen and ensuring they’re able to live a dignified life.  
  • Further, the Rules provide for protection of life and property of a senior citizen where there is a danger to such life and property and does not make any provision for eviction.  The Rules do not translate to evicting children from the property who lived in the shared household out of an earlier natural bonding.   
  • Analysing Rule 20, the Court opined that the Tribunal is not vested with the power of passing an eviction order.  It has usurped its purported powers and thus, the order is fundamentally void and without jurisdiction.  
  • Even in terms of Section 23 of the Act which provides for invalidating the transfer of property in case the children fail to maintain the parents, the petitioner cannot be called upon to vacate the premises.  
  • The Court also observed that Court should decide cases on the touchstone of statutes and constitutional morality and must not be guided by public or popular morality alone.  It remarked that societal expectations and obligations cannot be enforced or ordained by the Court unless expressly provided by the law.  
"Loved reading this piece by Megha?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  75  Report



Comments
img