The Supreme Court dismissed a Rajasthan man’s plea challenging an eviction order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, while strongly criticising his dispute with his elderly father and urging him to care for and support his parent.
The Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea by a man from Rajasthan who challenged an eviction order issued under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, while also remarking critically about the continuing property conflict between him and his elderly father. A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice V. Mohana dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) after a brief hearing, during which the Court made pointed observations.
Justice Nath observed,
“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,”
When Advocate Varun Bhati, appearing for the petitioner, argued that he too had a right over the disputed property, Justice Nath replied, “No. Next case.”
Bhati then submitted that he had a wife and a son to support, but the Court did not find it appropriate to intervene and proceeded to dismiss the petition.
The petition sought to overturn a Rajasthan High Court decision that had upheld an eviction order granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Maintenance Tribunal, Bilara, in favour of the petitioner’s father, who is a senior citizen. The dispute related to a residential property located at Bilara, Rajasthan.
The petitioner claimed that the house was an ancestral, undivided family property, initially purchased in 1986 in the name of his grandmother. He argued that after her death, the property devolved upon multiple legal heirs and therefore could not be treated as the father’s exclusive property.
According to the petitioner, he has been living in the premises with his wife and two children for years, and he asserted that he has coparcenary and co-ownership rights. He also argued that the eviction order had effectively deprived his family of their only residence.
The father had moved the Maintenance Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act seeking eviction of his son from the premises, alleging harassment and asking for protection to live peacefully in the house. The Tribunal allowed the application in February 2024 and directed the son to vacate the property. The eviction order was subsequently confirmed by the Single Judge and later by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the Senior Citizens Act should not be used as a substitute for civil court proceedings for deciding contested questions of title, co-ownership, and inheritance. He further argued that eviction under the Act is meant to be an exceptional remedy, not a tool for resolving family property disputes.
The SLP, filed through AoR Arjun Singh Bhati, also raised issues about the effect of the eviction on the petitioner’s wife and children, and questioned whether a co-owner could be removed through summary proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act without a comprehensive civil adjudication. However, the Supreme Court did not find grounds to interfere with the High Court’s ruling and dismissed the petition, thereby effectively affirming the eviction order in favour of the senior citizen father.
Case Title: Ramesh Kumar Soni v. Sampat Raj Soni
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE