The Bombay Excessive Court docket has held {that a} senior citizen who’s receiving common pension in addition to household pension and is ready to preserve himself doesn’t fall throughout the that means of Part 4 of the Upkeep and Welfare of Dad and mom and Senior Residents Act, 2007. The Court docket highlighted that the Act was introduced on the statute guide to supply for applicable mechanism to be set as much as present need-based upkeep to the dad and mom and senior residents.
Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande was listening to a writ petition filed by a 65-year-old father difficult orders handed by the Senior Residents Welfare Tribunal and the appellate authority rejecting his utility below Part 5 of the Act. The petitioner is the daddy of Respondent No.1 and father-in-law of Respondent No.2.
The petitioner submitted that though he had not claimed upkeep, he had a proper of existence within the property owned by him. He additionally contended that the property was bought in his son’s title with funds supplied by him and that his son had subsequently executed a registered Present Deed in his favour.
The respondents submitted that each authorities had recorded that the petitioner was receiving common pension in addition to the household pension of his deceased spouse, who was additionally a authorities servant. They contended that the Act wouldn’t apply when a senior citizen was in a position to preserve himself.
The Court docket famous that whereas rejecting the applying below the 2007 Act, the Competent Authority had famous that for the reason that petitioner herein is recurrently receiving pension as additionally household pension of deceased spouse, the provisions of the Act of 2007 can’t be invoked to order eviction of respondent No.1
The Court docket noticed that though the appellate authority had incorrectly recorded that the Present Deed was not registered, the petitioner was not an individual who was unable to take care of himself. It additional held that the validity of the Present Deed was not throughout the scope of the appellate authority.
Referring to Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, the Court docket famous {that a} senior citizen is entitled to make an utility solely the place the senior citizen is unable to take care of himself from his personal incomes or out of the property owned by him. Therefore, it noticed:
“It, due to this fact, follows as a essential corollary that an individual just like the petitioner, who admittedly receives an everyday pension in addition to a household pension of the deceased spouse, wouldn’t fall throughout the that means of Part 4 of the Act of 2007 in order to make him entitled to make an utility below Part 5 of the mentioned Act.”
The Court docket noticed that varied proceedings had been pending between the events regarding the property, however held that these proceedings weren’t related to deciding the current petition. With out making any remark in regards to the pending civil swimsuit, the Court docket discovered no perversity within the orders handed by the authorities under.
The Court docket accordingly rejected the petition.
Case Title: Bhimrao S/o Indeshwar Meshram v. Ashish S/o Bhimrao Meshram [Writ Petition No. 4949 of 2024]
