Top Court sets aside order allowing a couple, who disturbed fellow inmates, to stay in old age home
The Supreme Court on Friday set aside an ad-interim injunction granted to an old couple stating that they should not be dispossessed, while observing that the couple could not seek an injunction to stay in the old age home unless they allowed other inmates, a peaceful co-existence.
While setting aside the interim relief, the Court noted that it was an unfortunate situation when the parents could not be taken care of by the children, but the fact remains that abandonment of parents by their children is now a hard fact of life.
"Parents do find it difficult to reconcile the situation that at that age they have to stay in old age home. Therefore, one can understand the mental trauma which the parents face in the evening of their life but the agony suffered by a parent cannot be a cause of disturbance to the other inmates or to the organizers who have resolved to take care and run the old age home...", added a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam.
An old age home named Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar located at Adil Nagar, Ring Road, Lucknow approached the Supreme Court challenging an order passed by the Allahabad High Court whereby the revision petition filed by the respondent old couple was allowed and interim injunction was restored, as was granted by the Trial Court.
Samarpan had framed certain rules under which it was provided that if any rules of the complex were violated by any inmate, the Administration had got full right to expel him and dismiss his membership by issuing him one month period’s notice.
There was a dispute as to whether the old lady/wife is a psychiatric patient and misbehaved with the other inmates and staff members. The couple was then given some time to reform while their behaviour was monitored.
On the other hand, the old couple before supreme court demanded an inquiry into the financial irregularities, embezzlement, internal mis-management of old age home and their miseries, extortion and torture.
Law recognizes three types of possession, noted the top court.
One as that of an owner, including co-owners; second as a tenant, when a right is created in the property; and thirdly permissive possession, the possession which otherwise would be illegal or that of as a trespasser. In the present appeal, it was found that court was concerned with the possession falling in third category.
It was found that the couple, were permitted to stay in the old age home subject to certain payments to meet the necessary expenses of food and minor medical care.
"The possession of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in a room of an old age home is that of a licensee permitted to enjoy the possession, but without creating any interest in the property.... respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as licensees have a legal right to stay in the room of the old age home only so long as they comply with the terms and conditions of such license. Since respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had no legal right to protect their possession without complying with the corresponding obligations, as their possession is not a legal possession but only a permissive possession, they cannot seek any injunction to restrain the management of the old age home not to dispossess them.​​​​​​", noted the bench.
The inmates in the old age home are licensees and are expected to maintain a minimum level of discipline and good behaviour and not to cause disturbance to the fellow inmates who are also senior citizens. Therefore, if one parent is the cause of disruption of peace of other 12 inmates in the old age home, the administration of the old age home is at liberty to terminate the license and ask the inmate to vacate the room allotted to them, said the top court.
Further, it was observed that even if the organizers of the old age home are not able to meet the expectation or requirements of the plaintiff-couple, that would not confer a cause to them to disturb the other inmates.
"As a licensee, the plaintiffs have no right to stay in the accommodation allotted which is purely an approach to a human problem faced by the people in old age. The plaintiffs have even been offered alternative accommodation as well....", added the bench.
With this view, the court asked Samarpan to arrange an alternative old age home for the couple, as one offered by the Social Welfare Department.
"However, we observe that it is open to the Municipal Corporation or the Social Welfare Department to examine the living conditions of the inmates in the old age home so that the inmates live in as comfortable conditions as are possible at that age...", further said the top court.
Also, Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority has been directed to depute a para-legal volunteer to visit the old age home on such intervals as is possible and the Member Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority to visit the old age home at least once a month initially to find out the difficulties being faced by the inmates and to take redressal steps, including to provide legal aid if required by the inmates of the old age home.
Case Title: Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar & Ors. vs. Rajendra Prasad Agarwal & Ors.