Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 772 (TS)

Kasupa Gowramma v. State of Telangana

2023-12-05

C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:- "...to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.6 in not registering the F.I.R. against respondent Nos.7 and 8 basing on the complaints, dtd. 3/8/2022 and 22/9/2022 and not providing protection of petitioner life and property as per Article-21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and as envisaged under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (for short "the Act") and Rules in spite of the petitioners' complaint, dtd. 3/8/2022 and 22/9/2022 as arbitrary, highly illegal, violation of petitioners' fundamental legal rights..." 2. The case of the petitioners is that while petitioner No.2 while working in the BDL, had purchased the house bearing Municipal No.18/7/607/8/26 admeasuring 146 square yards, situated at Danaiah Nagar, Uppuguda, Hyderabad, in the name of his wife i.e., petitioner No.1, under registered sale deed dtd. 16/6/1998 bearing document No.1146 of 1998. It is further case of the petitioners that they were blessed with two daughters and one son and performed their marriages. The respondent No.8 is the wife of their son-respondent No.7 and they lived comfortably with respondent Nos.7 and 8 and in the year, 2010, petitioner No.2 retired from service and he was paid an amount of Rs.9.00 lakhs as retirement benefits and since then, respondent No.7 started demanding money for extending his business and finally petitioner No.2 paid an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs to respondent No.7. It is further case of the petitioners that respondent No.7 has taken three tolas of gold ornaments and did not return the same. It is the specific case of petitioners that on 26/1/2016, respondent Nos.7 and 8 have thrown out them from their house and creating problems on one pretext or the other. It is the further case of the petitioners that taking advantage of their old age, the respondent Nos.7 and 8 by hook or crook wanted to grab the house property purchased by petitioner No.2 in the name of petitioner No.1. It is the further case of the petitioners that taking advantage of their old age, the respondent Nos.7 and 8 by hook or crook wanted to grab the house property purchased by petitioner No.2 in the name of petitioner No.1. Vexed with the attitude of the respondent Nos.7 and 8, the petitioners have filed an application before respondent No.3 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred as "Senior Citizens Act") and the Telangana Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011 (for short "Rules") seeking protection and maintenance, in Case No.D/524/2021. Vide orders dtd. 11/8/2021, respondent No.3 directed respondent Nos.7 and 8 herein, to pay Rs.10, 000.00 per month to the petitioners. Questioning the said orders, the petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No.2 vide Case No.A/305/2022 and the same was dismissed on 4/6/2022. It is further case of the petitioners that though the petitioners lodged complaints, dtd. 3/8/2022 and 22/9/2022 to respondent No.6 seeking protection from the respondent Nos.7 and 8, the respondent No.6 has not acted upon the said complaints for providing protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners from the constant harassment and mental torture by the respondent Nos.7 and 8. Hence, the writ petition. 3. On 27/10/2023, when the matter came up for hearing, this Court, passed the following interim order: "Respondent No.7-K. Srinivas is present in the Court and he has undertaken to pay additional sum of Rs.10, 000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month to the petitioners, apart from an amount of Rs.10, 000.00 per month already directed to be paid vide order dtd. 11/8/2021 in Case No.D152412021 passed by respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hyderabad Division. Respondent No.7 is directed to pay a total sum of Rs.20, 000.00 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) per month to the petitioners from 1/11/2022 onwards, payable on or before 5th of each English Calendar month. The petitioner shall also pay arrears of Rs.1, 30, 000.00 @ Rs.10, 000.00 per month with effect from August, 2021 till this day, in four equal instalments. The 1st instalment shall be paid on or before 5/11/2022 and the subsequent three instalments shall be paid on or before 5th day of three consecutive months i.e., December, 2022, January, 2023 and February, 2023. Post on 1/12/2022." 4. Heard the submission of both sides and perused the record. 5. The 1st instalment shall be paid on or before 5/11/2022 and the subsequent three instalments shall be paid on or before 5th day of three consecutive months i.e., December, 2022, January, 2023 and February, 2023. Post on 1/12/2022." 4. Heard the submission of both sides and perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are aged about 70 and 64 years respectively, have been constantly harassed and mentally tortured by their son and daughter-in-law i.e, respondent Nos.7 and 8. The nuisance being created by the respondent Nos.7 and 8 has to be removed immediately and the Senior Citizens Act has an overriding effect especially by virtue of Sec. 3, which precludes the senior citizens from exercising the jurisdiction in matters, which are covered under the Senior Citizens Act. It is further submitted that the petitioners have right to live in peace and the respondent Nos.7 and 8 are not having any right over the property purchased by the petitioner No.2 in the name of petitioner No.1 and the respondent Nos.7 and 8 are harassing on one pretext or other. It is also submitted that unless there is a legally enforceable right, respondent No.7 is not entitled to deny the right of petitioners and deprive them from enjoying their property. It is further submitted that the measure of directing the petitioners to file a civil suit for recovery of possession was found to be frustrating the whole purpose and object of the Senior Citizens Act. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.7 and 8 have to be moved out of the premises for peaceful enjoyment of the petitioners. The respondent Nos.7 and 8 have not contributed any share to purchase the subject property in favour of petitioner No.1. As such the respondent Nos.7 and 8 are not having any right or authority to continue to enjoy the property acquired by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not in a position to maintain themselves on a mere amount of Rs.20, 000.00 per month. Therefore, learned counsel prayed this Court to direct the respondent Nos.7 and 8 to vacate the subject premises and hand over the same to the petitioners as the subject property stands in the name of petitioner No.1. It is further submitted that even though the petitioners made representations dtd. Therefore, learned counsel prayed this Court to direct the respondent Nos.7 and 8 to vacate the subject premises and hand over the same to the petitioners as the subject property stands in the name of petitioner No.1. It is further submitted that even though the petitioners made representations dtd. 3/8/2022 and 22/9/2022 to the respondent Nos.4 to 6 seeking to direct the respondent Nos.7 and 8 to vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the subject property but till date no action has been taken. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision in S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Others, (2021) 15 SCC 730 and ultimately prayed to allow the writ petition as prayed for. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that the Senior Citizens Act intends to provide protection to the Senior Citizens and their property to effectuate which, in the present case an eviction is expedient. The respondent Nos.7 and 8 being the son and daughter-in-law of the petitioners, have been continuously harassing the petitioners. The petitioner No.2 is a retired employee and the petitioner No.1 is his wife and they are solely dependent on the meagre pension of Rs.1481.00 per month and their lives would be sustained if the respondent Nos.7 and 8 are evicted from the subject property and the same is let out. The rental income is the only source of income for their sustenance. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 has submitted that acting on the complaints submitted by the petitioners, the respondent No.6 has conducted preliminary enquiry, wherein it was revealed that there are civil disputes and as such the complaints of the petitioners were closed as "civil in nature" on 6/8/2022 and 25/9/2022 and the same was informed to the petitioners. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 and 8 has asserted that under the provisions of Senior Citizens Act, there is no power to evict the respondent Nos.7 and 8 from the subject property. It is submitted that petitioners have filed the application seeking maintenance and the relief sought should be confined to the extent of prayer only. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 and 8 has asserted that under the provisions of Senior Citizens Act, there is no power to evict the respondent Nos.7 and 8 from the subject property. It is submitted that petitioners have filed the application seeking maintenance and the relief sought should be confined to the extent of prayer only. It is further submitted that the subject house property was purchased by using the funds of Hindu undivided family and as such the petitioners are not entitled to claim the subject property as absolutely acquired by them. Since the respondent Nos.7 and 8 have also contributed their share to purchase the subject property, they are entitled to occupy the same and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. In S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed as follows: "25. xxxx.......The Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 may have the authority to order an eviction, if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parent. Eviction, in other words would be an incident of the enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection. However, this remedy can be granted only after adverting to the competing claims in the dispute..........." 10. As seen from the material on record, the subject property stands in the name of petitioner No.1, who is the wife of petitioner No.2 and mother of respondent No.7. According to the petitioners, the subject house property was purchased by the petitioner No.2 in the name of petitioner No.1. It is the case of the respondent No.7 that he has contributed some amount for purchase of the subject property and that the same was purchased from the funds of Hindu undivided family. The respondent No.7 has not filed any document or material on the file of this Court to substantiate his case. Contrarily, the sale deed dtd. 16/6/1998 bearing document No.1146/1998 annexed to the writ petition would disclose that the subject property was purchased by the petitioner No.1. If the respondent No.7 is having any claim in the subject property as a co-sharer he has to establish the same before the competent Civil Court by instituting a suit. Since the subject property stands in the name of petitioner No.1 and none of the covenants of the sale deed dtd. If the respondent No.7 is having any claim in the subject property as a co-sharer he has to establish the same before the competent Civil Court by instituting a suit. Since the subject property stands in the name of petitioner No.1 and none of the covenants of the sale deed dtd. 16/6/1998 would reveal that the subject property was purchased by the respondent No.7 from the funds of Hindu undivided family and in the absence of specifically mentioning the said fact in the sale deed, it cannot be said that respondent No.7 is having any right to claim the property or to continue in possession of the subject property as co-sharer and his possession amounts to permissible possession. The petitioners are always having right to seek eviction of respondent No.7 at any time by following due procedure either by instituting a suit before the competent civil Court or by invoking the provisions of Senior Citizens Act and the Rules made thereunder. In the absence of any prohibitory order against the petitioners, the respondent No.7 cannot resist the right of the petitioners in enjoying their property. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted in compliance of the interim orders passed by this Court, the respondent No.7 has been paying maintenance at Rs.20, 000.00 per month to the petitioners and there is no default on the part of respondent No.7 and there are no arrears payable as on date. 12. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are aged about 64 years and 70 years respectively and they are not in a position to maintain themselves on a meagre amount of Rs.20, 000.00 per month and in fact they are spending the said amount for their medical expenses and therefore, sought for eviction of the respondent Nos.7 and 8 to enable the petitioners to let out the subject premises and derive rental income from it. In view of the advanced age of the petitioners and also the increase in cost of living expenses, it would be appropriate if respondent No.7 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.30, 000.00 per month towards maintenance to the petitioners till the delivery of possession to the petitioners. 13. In view of the advanced age of the petitioners and also the increase in cost of living expenses, it would be appropriate if respondent No.7 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.30, 000.00 per month towards maintenance to the petitioners till the delivery of possession to the petitioners. 13. In the said circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent Nos.7 and 8 to vacate the house bearing Municipal No.18/7/607/8/26 admeasuring 146.00 square yards situated at Danaiah Nagar, Uppuguda, Hyderabad, and hand over vacant peaceful possession to the petitioners within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till such time, the respondent No.7 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.30, 000.00 per month to the petitioners. In the event of failure to comply the aforesaid directions, the respondent Nos.3 and 6 are directed to enforce this order. 14. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.