AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, the defects as pointed out by the office are ignored.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 16th August, 2019 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by
the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi (the respondent no.3) in MAWOPASC Case No. 03 of 2019 whereby an application filed by Amla
Gupta (the respondent no.4) under Sections 22 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be
referred as the ""Act, 2007"") has been allowed with a direction to the petitioners to unlock the main door of the first floor of the building within a period
of one week from the date of receipt of the order as well as restraining them to create any hindrance with respondent no.5 in free access to his room.
Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 15th September, 2020 passed in MAWOPASC Appeal No. 22 R 15 of 2019-20 whereby
the order dated 16th August, 2019 passed by the respondent no.3 has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (the respondent no.2) by
dismissing the appeal.
Mr. M.K. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no.4 (mother of the petitioners) preferred an application before
the respondent no.3 on 20th February, 2019 praying for issuance of direction upon the petitioners to remove their illegal possession alleging therein that
they were trying to usurp the entire building by taking possession of the same with intention to deprive her from source of income. The respondent
no.3 appointed one Sagar Kumar, Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi as Commissioner for conducting spot verification of the premises in question
and to submit a report. Thereafter, the Commissioner inspected the premises and reported that the said premises is G+3 building and the respondent
no.4 is in occupation of ground floor, second floor and third floor whereas the petitioners are in occupation of the first floor where the bed room of
respondent no.5 (elder son of the respondent no.4) is also situated and they are not allowing the respondent no.5 to have access to the said floor. The
respondent no.3 after having received the report of the Commissioner and taking into consideration the plea raised by the parties, allowed the claim of
the respondent no.4 vide order dated 16th August, 2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the respondent no.2
which was numbered as MAWOPASC Appeal No.22 R 15 of 2019-20, however the same was also dismissed vide order dated 15th September, 2020
upholding the order passed by the respondent no.3. It is further submitted that there was a family agreement dated 14th October, 2018 whereby the
petitioners had agreed to ensure the construction of walls and floor of the room made on third floor and to hand over the same to their mother who in
turn was to hand over the same to respondent no.5 and thereafter one room of the first floor occupied by the respondent no. 5 was to be handed over
to the petitioners. As per the said agreement, the walls and floor of the 3rd floor was completed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent no.3 while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate that the case
was not filed by the respondent no.5, rather the same was filed by the respondent no.4 and the respondent no.5 was a defendant in the said case. As
such no relief ought to have been granted to him in a case filed by the respondent no.4. It is also submitted that the provisions of the Act, 2007 is not
applicable in the present case since the said Act has been enacted to give protection to the senior citizens or parents who do not have a source of
maintenance or to protect themselves from being ousted from the property which they may have gifted to their children or kith and kin. It is also
submitted that the respondent nos.2 and 3 while passing the impugned orders failed to appreciate that in the garb of the provisions of the Act, 2007, the
respondent no.5 has instigated the respondent no.4 to institute the said case with intention to oust the petitioners from the premises in question. It is
further submitted that both the petitioners are married having grown up children and as such allowing free access to respondent no.5 at the first floor
would disturb their privacy whereas locking the rooms situated at the first floor would not disturb the movement through staircase, thus allowing free
access to the second and the third floor to all.
Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, learned A.C. to S.C. III appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3 submits that the petitioners have no legal right to
lock the first floor of the premises in question against the will of the respondent no.4 since she is the owner of the property and the conditions of the
family agreement was not acceptable to her. The respondent nos.2 and 3 while passing the impugned orders have taken into consideration the factual
position of the case as well as the plea of the parties and as such, no interference of this Court is warranted.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is evident that while allowing the application of the
respondent no.4, the respondent no.3 found that the room constructed on the third floor was in possession of the petitioners and hence it was observed
that they cannot restrain the respondent no.5 to have access to his room situated at the first floor. In appeal, the respondent no.2 held that the claim of
the petitioners regarding possession of the first floor of the premises in question on the basis of the family agreement relating to accommodation in the
building belonging to the respondent no.4 did not appear to be tenable in the light of the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, 2007. Therefore, the
petitioners were rightly directed to unlock the first floor of the building belonging to the respondent no.4.
The family agreement dated 14th August, 2018 which is relied upon by the petitioners in support of their case has no legal validity since the same
has not been executed in accordance with law. A document which is not properly executed and acted upon by the parties cannot be given effect to
against the owner of a property. Moreover, it is evident from the report of the Commissioner that the respondent no.4 was not agreeable to accept the
room so constructed by the petitioners on the third floor since there was no toilet and bathroom made in it. The respondent no.3 has also given the
factual finding that the room constructed by the petitioners was still in their occupation.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has given much stress to his submission that the provisions of the Act, 2007 is not applicable in the present
case. Admittedly, the respondent no.4 is the owner of the premises in question, who is an old lady and she made a complaint before the respondent
no.3 alleging that the petitioners had illegally occupied the first floor of the premises in question by locking its main door and were not allowing the
respondent no.5 to enter into his room. She has further alleged that when she tried to pacify the matter, the petitioners started quarreling with her and
also assaulted her. She also claimed that the petitioners were trying to grab her property which is her only source of livelihood.
The Act, 2007 has been enacted to provide more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed
and recognized under the constitution and for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Vast powers have been conferred to the authority
under the Act, 2007 so as to protect the welfare of parents and senior citizens. Section 20(2) of the Act, 2007 also empowers the State Government to
prescribe a comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property to the senior citizens. As such, if the authorities below taking into
consideration the fact that the property of the respondent no.4 is in danger and the act of the petitioners amounts to harassment, which includes both
mental and physical, have directed the petitioners to unlock the main door of the first floor, the same cannot be said to be beyond the ambit of the Act,
2007.
One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent no.4 was not affected by the act of the petitioners and as
such, she should not have espoused the grievance of the respondent no.5 by filing an application under the Act, 2007. I do not find any substance in
the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Since the respondent no.4 being the mother of the respondent no.5 as well as the owner
of the said premises, allowed the respondent no.5 to occupy a part of the first floor, any obstruction to the said arrangement causing altercation
between the brothers, would certainly cause mental agony to the respondent no.4. Thus, the petitioners cannot be allowed to differentiate between the
cause of the respondent nos.4 and 5.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders so as to make any interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.