Read Time: 10 minutes

Hearing a petition filed by one son and his wife challenging his eviction from his parents' house, Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the plea, while heavily criticising their behaviour towards the parents.

Court upheld the eviction order against the son and his wife, referring to the provision of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Court also rejected son's claim that the house in question was gifted to him by his father and said that assuming that the father had gifted the house, even then the transfer of property is to be held void in certain circumstances.

The bench of Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill said,

“In the holy script of Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Sri Guru Ram Dass has written 'KAAHAY POOT JHAGRAT HA-O SANG BAAP/ JIN KAY JANAY BADEERAY TUM HA-O TIN SIO JHAGRAT PAPP//” (O son, why do you argue with your father? It is a sin to argue with the one who fathered you and raised you).

The above words of prudence guide us that we have to treat our parents as God.”

Stressing that the instant case is a classic example of the aforesaid narration, wherein the petitioners are seeking the equities entirely forgetting that it is because of their conduct that their old and aged parents had to seek the petitioners' eviction so as to buy back their peace and freedom, the court added,

“With the birth of the children, the parents feel the paramount bliss of the Supreme Power and thank Him. However, when the very children, who the parents have reared with untold sorrows and miseries, throw them at the mercy of their destiny and use their muscle power to torture and harass them, the parents’ world gets totally shattered.”

Court stated that the parents become helpless from all sides and thus, begins the unfortunate tale of their moving from one Forum to another for redressal of their grievances.

Facts in brief

The Father had filed an application under the provisions of the 2007 Act against his son and daughter-in-law (the petitioners) stating that he purchased a plot and constructed a house over it. He had averred that the petitioners were not treating him and his old wife properly and depriving them even of the basic necessities. He had said that the petitioners wanted to grab the house and owing to their behaviour, the man had to disown the son and his wife. They had requested the petitioners to vacate the house in question, but to no avail.

Afterward, they filed an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate who noted that the father was the owner of the house and in his report he recommended ejectment of the petitioners and sent the same to the office of the District Magistrate.

Accordingly, DM, Kurukshetra via an order dated July 17, 2019, ordered ejectment of the petitioners from the house.

The petitioners have filed the present writ challenging the abovesaid order contending that the house in question is a joint Hindu family property. The son said that he also contributed in the construction of ground floor of the house and it was constructed out of the funds of the joint Hindu family property.

Court’s observations

Rejecting petitioners claim that the house was gifted to them by the parents, Court said,

“For the sake of arguments, assuming that the respondent No.4 had gifted the house to the petitioners, even then the transfer of property is to be held void in certain circumstances.”

Court also referred to Section 23 of the 2007 Act, which provides that if a senior citizen has transferred his property to someone with a promise that they will be provided basic amenities and basic physical needs, which thereafter they are denied, then the transfer of the property made by the senior citizen shall be deemed have been made by and shall at the option of the transferor, be declared void.

Referring to other sections as well court said that a perusal of the above provisions would make it explicit that there is a provision for eviction in the 2007 Act.

Court also held that “the petitioners cannot maintain their claim on the alleged ground that petitioner No.1(son) had contributed towards the renovation of the house.”

Therefore, Court concluded that,

“It may be noticed that even in the cases, where a gift deed was executed by the parents in favour of the children, it was held that irrespective of any condition regarding providing to the transferor the basic amenities, the transferee would be bound to maintain the transferor.”

Thus, accordingly, Court rejected the petitioner finding it sans merit.

Case Title: Anil Kumar Dhiman and another v. State of Haryana and others

Access Copy of Judgment