Son fights eviction order in elderly father's home, Supreme Court says 'what kind of son are you?'

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has rejected a plea filed by a man challenging his eviction from his father's property under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The plea sought to overturn a Rajasthan high court decision that had upheld an eviction order passed by the maintenance tribunal, Bilara, in favour of the petitioner's father, a senior citizen.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice V. Mohana dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) after a brief hearing marked by pointed remarks from the court.

"What kind of a son are you? Fighting with your own father!? It's very unfortunate. Go and take care of your father. Let him live in peace for whatever remainder period of his life," Justice Nath observed.

When Advocate Varun Bhati, appearing for the petitioner and argued that his client too had a right over the disputed property, Justice Nath replied, "No. Next case." Bhati further submitted that the petitioner had a wife and a son to support, but the court declined to intervene and dismissed the petition.

The matter concerned a residential property at Bilara, Rajasthan. The petitioner claimed that the house was an ancestral and undivided family property, originally purchased in 1986 in the name of his grandmother.

He further said that after her death, the property devolved upon multiple legal heirs and could therefore not be treated as the exclusive property of his father.

The petitioner contended that he had been residing in the premises along with his wife and two children for years and held coparcenary and co-ownership rights in the property. He then added that the eviction order had effectively deprived his family of their only residence.

The father had approached the maintenance tribunal alleging harassment by his son and seeking protection to live peacefully in the house. The tribunal allowed the application in February 2024 and directed the son to vacate the premises. The order was subsequently upheld by the Single Judge and later confirmed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan high court.

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the Senior Citizens Act should not be used as a substitute for civil court proceedings to decide contested questions of title, co-ownership, and inheritance. He further contended that eviction under the Act is meant to be an exceptional remedy and not a tool for resolving complex family property disputes.

The SLP also raised concerns about the impact of the eviction on the petitioner's wife and children, and questioned whether a co-owner could be removed through summary proceedings without a comprehensive civil adjudication determining ownership rights.

The Supreme Court, however, found no grounds to interfere with the high court's ruling and dismissed the petition, effectively affirming the eviction order passed in favour of the senior citizen father.