SC directs man to hand over properties to 80-year-old father

NEW DELHI: In a relief to an 80-year-old man whose son did not allow him to reside in his properties, the Supreme Court has set aside an order which quashed a directive asking the son to vacate the properties.

The apex court said the maintenance tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, has the power to order eviction of a child or a relative from the property of a senior citizen, in case of a breach of obligation to maintain the elderly.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order on the father's plea challenging an order of the Bombay High Court passed in April which set aside the tribunal's order directing the son to handover possession of two properties to the father.

Referring to the 2007 Act, the bench said its framework clearly notes that the law was enacted to address the plight of older persons, for their care and protection.

"Being a welfare legislation, its provisions must be construed liberally so as to advance its beneficent purpose. This court on several occasions has observed that the tribunal is well within its powers to order eviction of a child or a relative from the property of a senior citizen, when there is a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen," it said.

The top court's September 12 order said despite being financially stable, the son acted in breach of his statutory obligations in not allowing the father to reside in the properties owned by him (father).

The top court noted while the appellant was aged about 80 years, his wife was 78-year-old and they have three children.

It said his elder son runs a business.

It noted the appellant purchased two properties in Mumbai and he along with his wife moved to Uttar Pradesh leaving their children behind in these properties.

The bench further noted the elder son had taken the properties in his possession and did not allow his father to reside there.

In July 2023, the appellant and his wife filed an application for maintenance and eviction of the occupants from the properties and in June last year, the tribunal directed the son to hand over the possession of both the premises.

The tribunal further directed a Rs 3,000 monthly maintenance to the elderly parents.

The tribunal's order was upheld by the appellate tribunal.

The son subsequently moved the high court, which allowed his plea and observed that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to pass an order for vacation of property against a senior citizen.

Dealing with the case, the apex court said the high court had proceeded on the presumption that the son was also a senior citizen.

"This in our view is erroneous. The record shows that the appellant (father) had moved an application before the tribunal on July 12, 2023 and at that point in time, the respondent's (son) age was 59 years," the bench said.

While setting aside the high court order, it said the high court fell in error in allowing the son's petition on a "completely untenable ground".

The counsel appearing for the son urged the top court for time to vacate the properties.

The bench granted him two week time to furnish an undertaking that he would vacate the premises by November 30, 2025 and in the meantime, the tribunal's order would not be given effect to.

"In the event the undertaking is not filed within the time allowed, it will be open for the appellant (father) to get the order executed forthwith and the interim protection shall stand automatically withdrawn forthwith," the bench said.