Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
Section 23—Order of eviction passed by District Magistrate set aside by Divisional Commissioner and son directed to pay property tax, water and electricity charges of properties in question along with INR 15,000 per month to the parents—Challenged—Ownership of properties by the senior citizens stands substantiated by the verification conducted by the District Magistrate, relying on the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate—Properties in question are commercial, not residential, and the senior citizens are seeking their vacation to enable them to enjoy the earnings derived from these properties—Daughter-in-law is not even a party to the present proceedings and there is no right of residence that the daughter-in-law could claim over these commercial properties—It is evident from the proceedings before the District Magistrate that daughter-in-law never asserted her right of residence, nor was any such claim raised—Senior citizens have been subjected to ill-treatment, thereby entitling them to seek eviction of son from the properties in question—Once the finding of ill-treatment was established by the District Magistrate, the logical and legally sound course of action would have been to uphold the eviction order to protect the senior citizens’ right to live free from such treatment—Given that the senior citizens have been unable to secure possession and, consequently, deprived of any income generated from these properties, the direction by the Appellate Court for the payment of INR 15,000 per month towards the use and occupation of the properties by son is justified and ought to be sustained—This payment serves as a fair measures to compensate the senior citizens for the loss of income from the properties while ensuring a degree of equitable relief in the circumstances presented—Impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner is set aside and that of the District Magistrate is restored.
[Paras 11 to 16]