November 27, 2018
In this recent case, the High Court of Delhi has observed that even though the property is HUF and the child is coparcener, if the child is abusing their parents then they can evict the child from the property.
Case name: Rajeev Bahl v. State and ors.
In the case, the Petitioner has assailed, Lower Court’s order whereby the Commissioner directed the petitioner to evict from the impugned property belonging to the Respondent. Here it would be relevant to mention that petitioner is the son of respondent. The Respondent prayed for eviction from his property alleging that the petitioner and his wife were threatening and blackmailing the respondent. The Petitioner on the other hand has contended that property in question belongs to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of which the petitioner is a coparcener and thus is entitled to enjoy the same.
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the Petition and made the following observations in the case:
- The High Court in view of the material available on record opined that it was suffice to state that a plain reading of the complaints indicate that respondent was distressed by the behaviour of his son and his daughter-in-law.
- With reference to the issue pertaining to the controversy whether the property in question is an HUF property, the Court noted that the said claim had no stand as the petitioner cannot resist ejection from the property in question.
- The High Court also made reference to Clause (i) of Rule 22(3)(1) as introduced by the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2016 which states that a senior citizen may make an application before the Dy. Commissioner/District Magistrate (DM) of his district for eviction of his son and daughter or legal heir from his self-acquired nproperty on account of his non-maintenance and ill-treatment.
- The Court observed that as the Clause as it stands today expressly permits a citizen/parent to make an application for eviction of his son, daughter and legal heir from the property of any kind whether movable and immovable, ancestral or self-acquired and tangible or intangible. Thus, the defence raised by the petitioner in regard to the nature of the property in question is of little relevance.
The Court thus concluded that there was ample material on record to indicate that respondent was distressed by the conduct of the petitioner and his wife and that the Respondent has a right to live peacefully.