Court says merely being a son is not enough to have rights on father's property

In a significant judgement, the Patna High Court, in a ruling in a case under the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act-2007, said that merely on the basis of relationship, the son does not have the right to claim residence in the property owned by the father.

Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Parthasarathy, considering the son's participation in the business, earnings and ability to bear the rent, said that the son, who has forcibly taken possession of the house, will have to pay monthly rent to the elderly parents.

R. P. Roy, the owner of a guest house, claimed in the court that his youngest son Ravi forcibly occupied three rooms of the guest house. Due to this, they were deprived of both rental income and residential facilities. Following Roy's allegations, the tribunal had issued an eviction order against the son, saying the guest house was a leased property of Roy, who is a senior citizen under law.

The son had appealed against this in the High Court. He argued that Roy had other sources of income. The property belongs to a joint Hindu family. Therefore he also has the right on it. The High Court quashed the tribunal's order for eviction of the son and sent the matter to the concerned District Magistrate, so that he could decide the rent of the rooms occupied by the son. The division bench said that the son will have to make regular payment of rent into the father's account.

The decision of the court amid a rising number of cases of mistreatment of senior citizens at the hands of their children. Often the elders have to leave their ancestral homes and live in shelter homes.