Bombay High Court orders man, wife to hand over flat to 88-year-old mother

The Bombay High Court recently upheld a Senior Citizens Welfare Tribunal order directing a man and his wife to evacuate a flat and hand it over to the man's 88-year-old mother [Hemant Gamanlal Mehta and Anr. vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.]..Justices SV Gangapurwala and RN Laddha observed that there was no document on record proving that the couple had independent rights to the flat. "In fact, the petitioners should have, with honour, allowed the mother respondent to stay in the said flat," the Court added.The Court also ordered the couple to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance to the mother..The tribunal had ruled against the couple in July 2022 following a complaint by the man's mother, an octogenarian. The same came to be challenged before the High Court.Advocate Pradeep Thorat, for the petitioners, submitted that the tribunal did not follow the summary procedure contemplated under Section 5(3), Section 6 and Section 8 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, so that the petitioner could lead the evidence. Even the procedure under Rules 7 and 13 of the corresponding Rules was not followed, he added.He also claimed that the petitioner's mother was not the sole owner of the flat and that the petitioner was entitled to 1/10th share in it. Moreover, he claimed that the flat was not independent and was merged with three other flats owned by the petitioner..Advocate Dinesh Purandare, appearing for the respondent, told the court that the flat was jointly owned by the respondent and her deceased husband, who filed a nomination with the society in favour of his wife.He said that despite the flat being transferred in the name of the respondent, the petitioners did not allow her to close the interconnecting doors and moreover, constantly pressured and threatened her to vacate the apartment. They also prohibited her from meeting her relatives, it was claimed..The Court noted that there was no dispute regarding the ownership of the flat and that it was owned by the respondent following her husband's death. Further, it said that the Senior Citizens Welfare Tribunal has the power to order an eviction, if it is necessary to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parent.The Court also observed that petitioner had never objected to the transfer of the flat to his mother after his father's demise, and it was not a summary case requiring oral evidence.Further, the Court said that it was not the case that the petitioners would have no other place to reside after they vacate the flat since records showed that apart from the flat in question, the petitioners had other flats also.Based on the family settlement deed, the Court determined that there was nothing to show that the petitioners had any independent rights regarding the flat."In the Family Settlement Deed, it has been recorded that the whole estate of late Shri Gamanlal Mehta (comprising of all property whatsoever, whether movable or immovable) be transferred to respondent no.3, being his widow to be held by her absolute property. We do not find any document on record showing that the petitioners have any independent rights regarding the flat in question," it stated.Thus, it confirmed the order of the tribunal directing the petitioners to vacate the flat and hand over the possession to the respondent-mother..The respondent had also sought monthly maintenance due to her ill-health and had been awarded ₹25,000 per month by the tribunal.The Court found no infirmity in the same but modified the same to ₹10,000 which is the maximum prescribed under the Act"If the petitioners are not maintaining respondent no.3-mother and are creating a nuisance and emotional disturbances to her, the whole purpose of the Act would be frustrated. In such circumstances, we do not find any perversity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal while passing an order of maintenance," the order said..[Read Judgment]