The Bombay High Court has upheld an order evicting a son from the flat of his senior citizen parents calling them the rightful owners and holding that a senior citizen cannot be “deprived of use, occupation or beneficial enjoyment of his or her property in a manner affecting normal life”.Crucially, the August 21 ruling held that an eviction plea filed by senior citizens was maintainable “even without an explicit prayer for financial maintenance” for maintenance “includes the right to peaceful residence and beneficial enjoyment of their own property”.Justice Amit Borkar was dealing with a plea of a son challenging his eviction order from his parents’ property, when he said, “The parents are the owners. The alleged proprietary right of the son has not yet been adjudicated. Until such right is declared by the competent Civil Court, mere assertion of a claim in a pending suit cannot defeat the right of the senior citizens to seek protection of their residence and property under the Act.”“The plea that the parties reside separately does not assist the petitioner. The statutory protection is not confined to cases where the child and senior citizen are physically residing in the same flat. The relevant question is whether the senior citizen is being deprived of use, occupation or beneficial enjoyment of his or her property in a manner affecting normal life,” the August 21 order said.Also Read | Gauhati High Court blocks senior citizen’s bid to oust son, daughter-in-law from houseThe ruling noted that the continued occupation of the flat by the son, coupled with the grievance regarding non-payment of rent and financial requirements stated by the senior citizens, provided sufficient material for the authority to consider the claim.Son challenges evictionThe petitioner-son challenged the sessions court order, which ordered him to vacate the property of his parents. The petitioner claimed that he has been residing at the address in question since his birth along with his parents. He then got married in 2012, and since then, his wife has also been residing at that address. Justice Amit Borkar heard the matter on August 21.According to the petitioner-son, the property was constructed from income generated from ancestral properties and constituted joint family property, while his name was recorded as an occupant. His parents, however, claimed ownership of the property. It was contended that the name of the petitioner has been duly mentioned in the occupancy certificate issued in respect of the building.Story continues below this adFamily disputes escalated after the parents sold one property in September 2015 without consulting the petitioner. He alleged that persons acting for the purchaser threatened him and his wife to vacate the premises. Further property transactions followed, leading the petitioner to institute a civil suit seeking partition and also lodge a police complaint against his parents, brother and others.In the meantime, the petitioner’s parents approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking relief concerning possession of the property. The SDM rejected their application on February 8, 2019. The parents appealed, and the additional collector, Pune, on June 27, 2019, allowed the appeal and set aside the SDM’s order. The son-petitioner then approached the high court challenging the appellate decision.Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Sneha Bhange along with Swapnil Sawgle and Chaitanya Nikte submitted that the building in question comprises 15 separate flats, out of which the petitioner resides in one independent flat along with his wife, whereas his parents reside in a separate flat. She submitted that the petitioner’s possession over the flat was neither forcible nor unauthorised.Appearing for the parents, advocate Sachin Gite submitted that the senior citizens were unable to afford payment of rent and were unable to bear the expenses towards medicines and medical treatment. It was stated that, since the opponent was not paying any rent, the senior citizens were compelled to sell the building for the purpose of repayment of the loan.Story continues below this adParents owners: RulingThe handwritten application stated that the parents were unable to afford rent and medical expenses, were not receiving rent from the occupied premises and required possession and income from the property. The court said these averments amounted, in substance, to a grievance concerning maintenance, residence and financial support.The court held that the Act’s protection is not restricted to cases where a child physically shares the same residence with a senior citizen. What matters is whether the child’s continued occupation affects the senior citizen’s ability to use or derive income from the property.“The purpose of the Act is not to undertake a comparative inquiry into the wealth of the senior citizen and the child. The relevant question is whether the senior citizens require protection in relation to their residence, maintenance or property and whether continued occupation by the child or relative affects their ability to live a normal and dignified life. When the handwritten application is read as a whole, it shows such a grievance. The senior citizens have referred to rent, medicines, loan liability and possession,” the court said.The court concluded that the parents’ application was maintainable because its contents disclosed grievances connected with maintenance, residence and use of their property. It upheld the Additional Collector’s order and directed Kishor to hand over peaceful possession within four weeks, while clarifying that this would not decide his wife’s independent rights or prejudice his pending partition suit.