Observing that senior citizens are being harassed by their children to grab their property while they are alive, the Bombay High Court recently upheld an order passed by the Welfare Tribunal and Deputy Collector, Mumbai City to remove musician Shweta Shetty from her senior citizen father’s house, reports Bar and Bench.
A Bench of Justices GS Patel and Madhav Jamdar observed a trend in Mumbai, particularly amongst the wealthy, of children harassing the elderly in order to somehow grab their property while they were still alive, without a care for their physical and mental well-being.
“It is our experience that in this city, and particularly or most especially amongst the wealthy of this city, senior citizens and elderly parents are being subjected to all kinds of harassment and deprivation in their twilight years. In case after case, we have complaints from senior citizens that their own sons and daughters are harassing them. In every case, the harassment is an attempt to somehow grab the senior citizen’s property in his or her lifetime without thought spared to the mental or physical health well-being or happiness of these seniors.” their order states (emphasis added).
These observations came in a writ petition filed by Shweta Shetty, who challenged the order of the Tribunal passed in a complaint by her father, MR Shetty.
In the complaint, the father stated that he did not want his daughter in his house anymore. Admittedly, the father was the sole owner of the flat and the daughter had no rights over it.
The 94-year-old widower father’s grievance was that with the several age-related ailments of varying degrees of severity, he was constantly being harassed and mistreated by his daughter.
The specific allegation was that the petitioner began to badger him “for her share of the property” and said that she would leave the flat only after she was given “her share”, which the father stated posed a danger to his safety.
Advocate Pradeep Thorat, appearing for the petitioner, stated that the Tribunal could not have entertained an application for eviction. By passing an order on that application, the Tribunal had not only acted without jurisdiction, but proceeded on a significant procedural illegality, it was submitted.
The High Court, however, could not accept this contention.
“What is her ‘share’ while he (father) is alive? She has none. He (father) may indeed give his flat and all wealth away inter-vivos. That is his choice. She cannot prevent him from doing so. So long as he is alive, Shweta has no ‘share’ in his property,” the order recorded.
On the alleged procedural illegality of the Tribunal, the Bench mused as to what evidence the petitioner could have led before the Tribunal after having agreed that she had no legal or legally-enforceable right or title to any part of the flat.
The Court noted that it is the statutory intent of the Senior Citizens Act that harassment to a senior citizen ought not continue.
“The one thing that senior citizens do not have the benefit or luxury of is time. It is not on their side, and every day’s delay before a Tribunal like this hurts senior citizens exponentially more than the younger generation,” the Bench highlighted.
While refusing to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, the Bench emphasized that this “extraordinary step” in a writ petition was required as there were actual lives involved and the Court’s concern was the life, well-being and health of a senior, “one most perhaps in need of our (Court) protection and of the protection of this statute.”
The Court had on November 18 directed Shweta Shetty and the other three daughters to stay away from the flat until a verdict was passed in the case. That order now stands vacated to the extent that it prevents the other three daughters from entering the flat.
Thorat along with Advocate Manoj Agiwal appeared for the petitioner. Advocates Sujay Kantawala with Aditya Iyer appeared for father.
Advocate Aishwarya Kantawala appeared for the other daughters of the father. Additional Government Pleader Kedar Dighe appeared for State.
