[Senior Citizens Act] Son-In-Law Must Vacate Father-In-Law's House In Case Need Arises For Peaceful Income For Senior Citizen U/S 23 Of The Act: MP HC
4 Feb 2025 5:11 PM
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in a recent ruling ordered eviction of a son-in-law residing on premises belonging to his retired father-in-law who needed the said property as a source of additional income to maintain his wife and children.
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court upheld the decision of the writ court wherein it was opined that by implication if the house was given to the daughter, the son-in-law after the death of the daughter, will be included in the definition of children as defined in Section 2(a) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 and therefore, the son-in-law has a duty to maintain the senior citizen as defined in Section 2(h) of the Act.
The division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain observed, “…Mere facet of income cannot be looked into but a peaceful income giving satisfaction to the owner of the property who happens to be a senior citizen in another facet which is to be understood and imbibed by implication while interpreting the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, 2007.When the whole facts of the case are examined from said prospective, then there is a senior citizen, he is in need of the property and that need is bonafide and for peaceful purposes, therefore, petitioner having failed to establish any of his rights over the property, is not entitled to continue in the property dehors the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Collector.”
As per the factual matrix of the case, the appellant-petitioner is the son-in-law of respondent No.3. the appellant was married to the deceased daughter of Respondent No.3. The appellant is living in the house of Respondent No. 3 as a permissive occupant and contends that he cannot be evicted from the said premises. The present appeal challenges the impugned orders passed by the Single Judge, Sub-divisional Officer (Respondent No. 2) and the Collector (Respondent No. 1).
The said house was purchased by the respondent No.3 in 2007. It is contended by the appellant that since he was a labourer and the facility of the loan was not available to him at that time, therefore, he had purchased the house in the name of his father-in-law. However, there was no such agreement brought on record to show that the house was purchased in the name of respondent No.3 because the loan facility was not available to the appellant.
It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant being a son-in-law will not fall under the definition of 'Children' given in Section 2-A of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007. Further, even 'relative' defined in Section 2(g) of the Act of 2007 will not include the appellant, therefore, the appellant was not covered under the provisions of the Act of 2007 and could not have been the subject matter of any order under the provisions of the Act of 2007.
It was further submitted that the appellant has adverse possession over the property and he had contributed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ in the account of respondent No.3 towards the construction of the house.
On the contrary, the counsel for Respondent No. 3/father-in-law contends that the order is under Section 23 of the Act of 2007 which deals with transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances. It is not an order under any other provision. Further, the children will include their son-in-law because the definition is not comprehensive.
In fact, when the property was given to the daughter of respondent No.3 then, in a package, the appellant was inducted. The appellant is not taking care of the senior citizen and on the contrary, is causing a nuisance for them as per the application filed by respondent No.3 before the SDM, M.P. Nagar Circle Bhopal and on account of that directions for eviction were given.
In the impugned order, the Single Judge observed that the definition of 'Children' contained in Section 2(A) of the Act of 2007 is not comprehensive as it only talks about broader categories of persons namely sons, daughters, grand-son and grand-daughter who are not minor.
The single bench opined that by implication if the house was given to the daughter and the petitioner-appellant was son-in-law after the death of the daughter, would be included in the definition of children and he has a duty to maintain the senior citizen as defined in Section 2(h) of the Act of 2007. It was further observed that as far as 'relative' is concerned that too will also not be of any consequence because it is not a matter of childless senior citizen.
While hearing the appeal, the High Court observed that provisions contained in Section 23 of the Act of 2007 would not be applicable because there was no transfer of property. The court said that the transfer of property includes permissive transfer or gratuitous transfer in favour of a person and if the senior citizen is able to demonstrate his need, then that transfer can be declared null and void in terms of the provisions contained in Section 23 of the Act of 2007.
Therefore, the court opined that the learned Single Judge had rightly observed that Respondent No. 3 who is a retired BHEL employee with no regular pension and has the responsibility for his sick wife as well as other children, needs the property which was constructed by him, so that he can have a source of additional income.
Thus, the court upheld the order of the Single Judge and directed the appellant to vacate the premises within 30 days, failing which the SHO would remove the articles from the said house and handover to respondent No. 3.
Case Title: Dilip Marmat Versus Collector And Others, Writ Appeal No. 1705 of 2023
TNN | Feb 14, 2025, 04.00 AM IST
