RAVI SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Law and morality regulate and control human behaviour in society. Though complementary, when morality is infused into legislation, the legislatures have to caution themselves from overstepping the legal premise and the Courts have the daunting task of avoiding a judicial overreach hinged only on popular notions of right and wrong. That parents have to be looked after by children require no legislative imprimatur but in deciding property rights, we should be conscious of the interplay of such rights regulated by various statutes.

(2.) The order impugned in the appeal is one affirming the order issued by the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Senior Citizens Act). The 8th respondent, who was the father of the first appellant was before the Tribunal seeking eviction of the 1st appellant and his wife-the 2nd appellant, who were residing in the rest house owned by the 8th respondent; the rent received from which is asserted to be the only income of the 8th respondent.

(3.) The petitioners in the writ petition, appellants herein, claimed that the prayers made by the 8th respondent, the applicant under the Senior Citizens Act, could not have been made since there was total lack of jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal under that Act to evict the son and his family who were residing in the rest house; a permissive occupation or even if it is alleged to be a trespass. It was argued by the appellants that problems arose within the family due to the marriage of the appellants, solemnized on 14/6/2018, which was not to the liking of the 1st appellant's parents. The appellants also contended that there was no prayer for maintenance made by the 8th respondent, who had sufficient means to look after himself. The residence of the appellants and their daughter in the three rooms in the rest house does not in any manner prejudice the 8th respondent. The 8th respondent is deprived only of the rent of the said rooms and he continues to collect the rent from the other 20 residential rooms and 21 shop rooms situated in the very same building. The appellants also have a case that the rest house is one purchased by the father, the 8th respondent, from out of the funds of the joint Hindu family to which they belonged and there is a partition suit filed by the 1st appellant; which makes him a co-owner entitled to reside in the premises.