Patna High Court: Kinship Doesn't Grant Automatic Right to Reside in Father's House -

The Patna High Court observed that merely being the son does not confer the right to reside in a property exclusively owned by their father.

Top of Form

In that context, the Bench of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy observed that, “since there is no injunction against the exclusive possession of the 8th respondent, the 1st appellant cannot claim any right of residence in the building as a co-owner, just as the father, a senior citizen, cannot seek eviction from the separate residence of the son in a building owned by him, under the Senior Citizens Act. The son also cannot claim a right to residence in a building exclusively owned by the father, by virtue of their relationship alone.”

The legal representatives for the appellants were Syed Alamdar Hussain and Surya Nilambari, while the State was represented by AAG PK Verma. Senior Counsel Bindhyachal Singh and Senior Counsel Vipin Kr. Singh presented the case for the respondent.

This legal matter involves the eviction of the first appellant and his wife (second appellant) from a rest house owned by the 8th respondent, who happens to be the father of the first appellant.

The appellants contended that the Tribunal lacked the authority to address the eviction request under the Senior Citizens Act. They argued that the 8th respondent had alternative financial support options, and the property was part of a joint Hindu family.

Conversely, the 8th respondent asserted reliance on the rental income from the rest house, as he and his wife lived in a rented flat. The appellants were accused of harassment and unauthorized occupation of rooms in the rest house.

Top of Form

It was also noted that, “The parents and the son and his family are residing in different places, the former at a rented accommodation and the latter in the rest house occupying three rooms; though there is allegation of harassment and nuisance. The fact that the parents and the son and his family are not living in one building would not enable a prayer for eviction. The rest house, which is a separate building is where the son resides with his family.”

The High Court observed that there was no ground to enable an eviction by the Tribunal constituted under the Act. In that context, it was said that, “there could be no eviction ordered under the Senior Citizens Act since the claim is not under Section 23(1). The claim of the 8th respondent before the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, if at all coming under Section 23(2) of the Act, there can only be an enforcement of the right of maintenance from the property. An occupation whether it is permissive or an encroachment would have the trappings of a transfer, which would dis-entitle the owner of the property from the maintenance by way of rental income generated from the occupied rooms in the rest house. We make it clear that the appellants, as of now, do not have any right to claim the income from the other rooms in the rest house, nor can they obstruct or cause harassment to the other occupants of the rooms.”