Senior citizen's right to exclusively reside in his own house must be viewed from prism of Article 21: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court on Friday emphasised that the right of senior a citizen to exclusively reside in his own house must be viewed from the prism of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Ramapada Basak vs. The State of West Bengal) .The Court made the observation while disposing of a plea by two senior citizens (petitioners) seeking the eviction of his son and daughter-in-law from his residence..In the order, Justice Rajasekhar Mantha also added that a nation that cannot take care of its aged, old, and infirm citizens cannot be regarded as having achieved complete civilization.In the instant dispute, the son and daughter-in-law had already been escorted out of the residence of the petitioners at the time of passing the order. However, the Court went on to make important observations with respect to similar disputes..Justice Mantha noted that it is established law that children and their spouses living in a senior citizen’s house are licensees at best and that their licence to reside at the senior citizen's residence comes to an end as soon as the senior citizen ceases to be comfortable with the children and their families..Another issue that arose in this case concerned whether the availability of an alternative remedy under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents Senior Citizens Act, 2007 would bar the petitioners (senior citizens) from approaching the High Court in its Writ jurisdiction. .The Bench observed that since a senior citizen’s right to exclusive residence is to be viewed through the prism of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), it would be erroneous to compel a person in the sunset days of his life to seek recourse in a civil court or a tribunal under the 2007 Act. .Therefore, it was held that, “The principle of alternative remedy cannot be strictly applied to Senior Citizens and a Writ Court must come to the aid of a Senior Citizen in a given case.”.The Court also briefly dwelt on the right of residence of a daughter-in-law if a claim is made under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. .To tackle this conundrum, the High Court relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha Vs. Deputy Commissoner, Bangaluru Urban District, wherein the top Court had emphasised that the Domestic Violence Act and the Senior Citizens Act should be harmoniously interpreted. .The apex Court held that, “Since both, the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as also the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are special legislations, the two must be construed harmoniously and applied suitably by a writ court hearing a plea of the senior citizens that they do not want their children to live with them… The law protecting the interest of senior citizens is intended to ensure that they are not left destitute, or at the mercy of their children or relatives. Equally, the purpose of the PWDV Act 2005 cannot be ignored by a sleight of statutory interpretation. Both sets of legislations have to be harmoniously construed.”.In the case before the Calcutta High Court, however, the daughter-in-law had not claimed any right of residence under the Domestic Violence Act. As such, Justice Mantha opined that there was no impediment to allowing the senior citizens (petitioners) exclusive residentiary rights or directing the eviction of his son and daughter-in-law..[Read Order]