Case Name: Rajeswar Prasad Roy v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Judges: Vikram Nath, J.; Sandeep Mehta, J.
Date of Judgment: January 30, 2025
Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No(s). 7675 of 2024)
Relevant Law: Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007; Bihar Senior Citizens Rules, 2012
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Eviction of Relatives – Tribunal’s Authority – Self-Acquired Property.
Senior citizen, a 75-year-old retired engineer, sought eviction of his son and daughter-in-law from his self-acquired property, used as a rest house for rental income, alleging unauthorized occupation of three rooms, threats, and harassment – Maintenance Tribunal ordered eviction; Single Judge upheld, but Division Bench set aside, suggesting rent determination.
Held
Tribunal has authority under the Act to order eviction to ensure maintenance and protection of senior citizens, as supported by S. Vanitha and Bihar Senior Citizens Rules, 2012 – Property confirmed as self-acquired, not ancestral – Respondents’ harassment and encroachment justified eviction – Division Bench erred in prioritizing rent over eviction – Appeal allowed, Tribunal’s eviction order restored, respondents to vacate by May 31, 2025
Facts
- Appellant: Rajeswar Prasad Roy, a 75-year-old retired Junior Engineer, owned a self-acquired property (G/626, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna) transferred to him by the Bihar State Housing Board via a lease deed in 1992. He constructed 20 rooms on the property, operating it as “Preeti Rest House” to supplement his pension income of Rs. 4,789/month. He resides with his wife in a rented flat in Patna.
- Respondents 8 and 9: Ravi Shankar (Appellant’s third son) and Minu Kumari (daughter-in-law), who married in 2018. They briefly resided with the Appellant, then moved to Minu Kumari’s parental home but visited regularly.
- Dispute: In 2021, Respondents 8 and 9 allegedly began creating discord, with Minu Kumari instigating Ravi Shankar to seize the Appellant’s property. Initially allowed to use one room temporarily, they occupied three rooms by breaking locks, threatened the Appellant with false criminal cases, and disrupted the Rest House operations. Respondent 8 filed a civil suit claiming the property as ancestral and a complaint alleging mistreatment by the Appellant’s family.
- Procedural History:
- The Appellant filed an application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking eviction of Respondents 8 and 9 and protection from harassment. The Maintenance Tribunal (Patna) ordered their eviction on April 16, 2022.
- Respondents challenged this in a writ petition (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7851 of 2022), which the Single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissed on July 20, 2023, upholding the Tribunal’s order.
- In a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 907 of 2023), the Division Bench of the Patna High Court overturned the Single Judge’s order on January 3, 2024, ruling that eviction was inappropriate without a specific maintenance claim under Section 23(1) of the Act and remanded the case for determining reasonable rent.
- Appeal: The Appellant challenged the Division Bench’s order in the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the Maintenance Tribunal had the authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to order the eviction of Respondents 8 and 9 from the Appellant’s property.
- Whether the Division Bench of the Patna High Court erred in setting aside the eviction order and remanding the case for determining rent instead.
Holding
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench’s order dated January 3, 2024, and restored the Maintenance Tribunal’s eviction order dated April 16, 2022.
- Respondents 8 and 9 were granted time until May 31, 2025, to vacate the premises and hand over peaceful possession to the Appellant.
Reasoning
- Property Ownership: The Court affirmed the Tribunal’s finding, concurred by both the Single Judge and Division Bench, that the property was the Appellant’s self-acquired property, not ancestral, as evidenced by the Plot Possession Report (1982) and lease deed (1992). Respondents’ claim to the property as ancestral was noted, but they were directed to pursue it through appropriate legal remedies.
- Tribunal’s Authority: Citing S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., the Court held that the Tribunal has the authority to order eviction under the Act if necessary to ensure the maintenance and protection of senior citizens. Eviction is an incident of enforcing the right to maintenance and protection. Rule 21(2)(i) of the Bihar Senior Citizens Rules, 2012, further obligates the District Magistrate to protect senior citizens’ life and property.
- Conduct of Respondents: The Court noted the worsening behavior of Respondents 8 and 9, including encroaching on the property, threatening false criminal complaints, and disrupting the Rest House, causing mental and physical harassment to the Appellant, a 75-year-old senior citizen.
- Purpose of the Act: The Act aims to provide simple, speedy, and inexpensive mechanisms to protect senior citizens’ life and property. Allowing Respondents to remain would defeat this purpose, especially given their harassment and unauthorized occupation.
- Division Bench’s Error: The Division Bench incorrectly prioritized a rental obligation over eviction, ignoring the Tribunal’s authority and the necessity of eviction for the Appellant’s welfare. The Single Judge and Tribunal correctly balanced the competing claims.
Disposition
- The appeal was allowed, and the Division Bench’s order was set aside.
- The Tribunal’s eviction order was restored, with Respondents 8 and 9 ordered to vacate by May 31, 2025.
- Pending applications were disposed of.