Son and daughter-in-law challenged a Tribunal order under the Senior Citizens Act evicting them from an elderly mother's tenanted premises and granting her maintenance. The High Court held the order was guarded, did not affect any tenancy claim, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2024.04.05 20:19:38 +0530
3-wp-379-2023.doc
varsha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 379 OF 2023
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 13th MARCH, 2024
Page no. 1 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Page no. 2 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
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
Page no. 3 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
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.
Page no. 4 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
transferred in her name. Respondent no.2’s mother-in-law i.e. grandmother of petitioner no.1 was residing along with them in the residential premises and respondent no.2 had harassed her motherin-law to the extent that there was a criminal complaint filed against her. Respondent no.2’s mother-in-law expired on 19th March 2022 and by taking undue advantage of her demise, respondent no.2 with the help of her daughters filed a false case under the Senior Citizens Act on 26th August 2022.
Page no. 5 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
electricity connection and ration card were illegally transferred by petitioner no.1 in his name. However, by following due procedure the same has been rectified on the application filed by respondent no.2. Learned counsel for respondent no.2, further submitted that harassment caused by the petitioners is to the extent that petitioner no.2 has installed CCTV cameras in the residential premises which amounts to a breach of privacy of respondent no.2 and her right to live peacefully in her own house where she has been residing along with her husband, since beginning.
Page no. 6 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that service quarter is allotted to petitioner no.1 and he has also acquired certain premises at Badlapur. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 relied upon copies of the additional documents produced along with an affidavit. He further submitted that petitioner no.1 has secured a job in Mumbai Municipal Corporation on compassionate basis after the death of respondent no.2’s husband. He thus, submitted that no hardships would be caused to the petitioners if they vacate the residential premises. Learned counsel for respondent no.2, further submits that though petitioner no.2 has initiated proceedings under the DV Act in the year 2017, there are no orders passed granting any interim protection in favour of petitioner no. 2. He further submits that proceedings under the DV Act are filed on false allegations and the same are simply kept pending to harass respondent no. 2. Since no orders are passed under the DV Act in favour of petitioner no.2, only the pendency of proceedings under the DV Act cannot be a ground for interfering with the well-reasoned order passed by the Tribunal. He further submitted that except for the residential premises, respondent no.2 has no other shelter and thus, at this age, she is entitled to reside in her own premises peacefully. He submitted that due to harassment caused by petitioners, she is required to stay at the mercy of her
Page no. 7 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
daughter though the premises where she is entitled to reside as a matter of right is available for her use. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 thus, submitted that there is no case made out by the petitioners for invoking powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for interfering with the impugned order.
Page no. 8 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
Page no. 9 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
appears that respondent no.2 was constrained to file a police complaint against the petitioners due to harassment caused to her by the petitioners. Petitioners do not dispute that petitioner no. 1 has installed CCTV cameras in the residential premises. Respondent no. 2 is right in making a grievance that such conduct on the part of petitioner no. 1 amounts to a breach of her privacy and a breach of her peace of mind. Respondent no. 2 cannot be denied her fundamental right to live in peace in the house where she has been always residing along with her husband.
Page no. 10 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
the Tribunal should have recorded the finding concerning the rights of the petitioners. It is submitted that this Court in the said decision held that the Tribunal was required to find out whether the concerned property exclusively belonged to the senior citizen or it was an ancestral property and if the petitioners had rights of ownership and/or right of residence. This Court had thus, remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for recording findings on the same. It is thus submitted that considering the facts of the present case, the same principle would apply to the present case and the matter is required to be remitted back for a decision on petitioners’ claim of joint tenancy along with respondent no.2.
Page no. 11 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
nonetheless the Tribunal is required to find out whether the flat in question exclusively belonged to the senior citizen or it was an ancestral property where the petitioner therein i.e. the daughter-inlaw of the senior citizen also had a right of ownership and/or residence through her husband. Thus, considering the rival claims on the residential premises it was further held that the Tribunal was required to deal with the contention that being a shared household the petitioner therein could not be evicted. Thus, in the absence of any such findings, the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.
Page no. 12 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
Thus, the Tribunal has considered the rival contentions and held that respondent no. 2 has better rights in the residential premises. Thus, the necessary inquiry has been done by the Tribunal and considering the nature of the rival claims of the parties no further inquiry is required. Hence, in the facts of the present case, unwarranted remand will defeat the objects of the Senior Citizens Act.
2 Writ Petition No. 2400 of 2021
3 Writ Petition No. 7392 of 2021 with Interim Application No. 17712 of 2023.
Page no. 13 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
the principle of law laid down in the decisions of Dinesh Chandanshive as well as Ashish Dalal squarely applies to the present case.
19. Considering the nature of the dispute in the present case, and
for examining the rival arguments made by both parties it is necessary to understand and correctly apply the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of S. Vanitha. In the said decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the competing reliefs under the DV Act and the Senior Citizens Act held in paragraphs 35 to 38 as under:
4 AIR 2021 SC 177
Page no. 14 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
“35. In the present case, Section 36 of the PWDV Act, 2005, albeit not in the nature of a non obstante clause, has to be construed harmoniously with the non obstante clause in Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 that operates in a separate field.
“ 4. The Bill, inter alia, seeks to provide for the following—
(i) It covers those women who are or have been in a relationship with the abuser where both parties have lived together in a shared household and are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the
Page no. 15 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
nature of marriage or adoption. In addition, relationships with family members living together as a joint family are also included. Even those women who are sisters, widows, mothers, single women, or living with the abuser are entitled to legal protection under the proposed legislation. However, whereas the Bill enables the wife or the female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage to file a complaint under the proposed enactment against any relative of the husband or the male partner, it does not enable any female relative of the husband or the male partner to file a complaint against the wife or the female partner.
(ii) It defines the expression “domestic violence” to include actual abuse or threat or abuse that is physical, sexual, verbal, emotional or economic. Harassment by way of unlawful dowry demands to the woman or her relatives would also be covered under this definition.
(iii) It provides for the rights of women to secure housing. It also provides for the right of a woman to reside in her matrimonial home or shared household, whether or not she has any title or rights in such home or household. This right is secured by a residence order, which is passed by the Magistrate.
(iv) It empowers the Magistrate to pass protection orders in favour of the aggrieved person to prevent the respondent from aiding or committing an act of domestic violence or any other specified act, entering a workplace or any other
Page no. 16 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
place frequented by the aggrieved person, attempting to communicate with her, isolating any assets used by both the parties and causing violence to the aggrieved person, her relatives or others who provide her assistance from the domestic violence.
(v) It provides for appointment of Protection Officers and registration of non-governmental organisations as service providers for providing assistance to the aggrieved person with respect to her medical examination, obtaining legal aid, safe shelter, etc.”
Page no. 17 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Page no. 18 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
proceedings. Therefore, in the event that a composite dispute is alleged, such as in the present case where the residential premises are a site of contestation between two groups protected by the law, it would be appropriate for the Tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to appropriately mould reliefs, after noticing the competing claims of the parties claiming under the PWDV Act, 2005 and the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to override and nullify other protections in law, particularly that of a woman's right to a “shared household” under Section 17 of the PWDV Act, 2005. In the event that the “aggrieved woman” obtains a relief from a tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, she shall be duty-bound to inform the Magistrate under the PWDV Act, 2005, as per sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the PWDV Act, 2005. This course of action would ensure that the common intent of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the PWDV Act, 2005, of ensuring speedy relief to its protected groups who are both vulnerable members of the society, is effectively realised. Rights in law can translate to rights in life, only if there is an equitable ease in obtaining their realisation.”
emphasis applied
Page no. 19 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
shows that petitioner no. 2 has not only prayed for protecting her right in the shared household but also prayed for directing respondent no. 2 and her daughters to remove themselves from the residential premises i.e. seeking directions to vacate and prayed for a restraining order prohibiting respondent no. 2 and her daughters from entering the residential premises. Thus, the nature of prayers made in the DV proceedings shows the motive of the petitioners to remove respondent no. 2 from the residential premises. It is pertinent to note that petitioner no. 2 has not made any allegations against petitioner no. 1 in the DV proceedings. It is not her case that to deprive her of her matrimonial and/or shared household her husband i.e. petitioner no. 1 has taken aid of the Senior Citizens Act through his mother i.e. respondent no. 2. In the present case respondent no. 2 has made allegations against her son and daughter-in-law. Even otherwise though the DV proceedings were initiated in the year 2017, there is no order passed in favour of petitioner no. 2. Hence, the mere pendency of DV proceedings cannot be a ground to deprive respondent no. 2 of getting protection guaranteed to her under the Senior Citizens Act.
Page no. 20 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
and Ashish Dalal, squarely apply to the present case. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dinesh Chandanshive held that during the lifetime of the parents, the children cannot assert any legal right whatsoever in respect of the property of their parents claiming exclusive ownership or possession of the parent's property. In the facts of the said case, it was further held that the proper remedy would be to file a suit claiming any right and it cannot be during the lifetime of the mother. In the present case, it is not disputed that the rent receipts of the residential premises stand in the name of respondent no. 2’s deceased husband. Respondent no. 2 has been residing since her marriage in the residential premises with her husband. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that she has better rights in the premises. At the same time, the Tribunal has passed a guarded protective order and restrained the petitioners from claiming any right in the residential premises only during the lifetime of respondent no. 2. Thus, the petitioners’ right if any is not affected.
Page no. 21 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
under the Senior Citizens Act. Merely raising a contention before the Tribunal in the proceedings initiated by respondent no. 2 will not preclude the Tribunal from passing appropriate reliefs protecting the rights of respondent no. 2 guaranteed under the Senior Citizens Act. Hence the Tribunal has rightly passed a guarded protective order that does not cause any prejudice to the petitioners.
“10. It is thus clear that the intention of the legislature in making such provisions in the interest of senior citizens, covers a wide spectrum of the senior citizens rights, which are fundamental to their very survival and/or livelihood at
Page no. 22 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
their old age. Certainly the Court's approach cannot be narrow and pedantic in applying the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act to the grievances of the senior citizens falling within the ambit of the said Act. A protection from harassment, exploitation, neglect, psychological disturbances, psychological needs, and all possible facets to safeguard their physical and mental health are required to be recognized when sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 4 clearly provide that the obligation of the children or relatives would be to cater to the needs of the senior citizens so that they ‘live a normal life’. The words “normal life” as used in these provisions would possess a far deeper and wider concept, deriving its meaning and having a bearing on the fundamental rights of livelihood as guaranteed and enjoyed by senior citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution. Certainly, this would include a right to prevent themselves from being harassed by children and by relatives. This is also clearly borne out by the preamble to the Senior Citizens Act which reads thus:—
“An act to provide for more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognised under the Constitution and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
Page no. 23 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
facts of the present case to invoke the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act to seek a relief against the petitioners qua their property namely the flat in their possession.”
emphasis applied
Page no. 24 of 25
3-wp-379-2023.doc
matrimonial rights. It is not disputed that petitioners are residing together and there is no matrimonial dispute amongst them. Hence, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if they vacate the residential premises. Thus, substantial justice is done by the Tribunal.
(GAURI GODSE, J.)
Page no. 25 of 25
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's order under the Senior Citizens Act directing the son and daughter-in-law to vacate the mother's residential premises could be interfered with under Article 227.
Whether pendency of daughter-in-law's DV proceedings claiming a shared household right barred eviction relief to the senior citizen.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ritika Prashant Jasani Vs Anjana Niranjan JasaniDistinguished¶15
Ritika Prashant Jasani Vs Anjana Niranjan Jasani
Ashish Vinod Dalal and Ors Vs. Vinod Ramanlal Dalal and OrsRelied on¶24
Ashish Vinod Dalal and Ors Vs. Vinod Ramanlal Dalal and Ors
Dinesh Bhanudas Chandanshive Vs. The State of Maharashtra and OrsRelied on¶21
Dinesh Bhanudas Chandanshive Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors
S. Vanitha V/s Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and OrsExplained¶19
Smt. S. Vanitha V/s Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pawan Ravindra Panchal
Vaishali Pawan Panchal
State of Maharashtra
Kusum Ravindra Panchal
Gauri Godse
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
