2020 (12) TMI 1213 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking the appellant and her daughter s eviction from a residential house in North Bengaluru - case of appellant is that appellant is residing in her matrimonial home as the lawfully wedded spouse of the Fourth respondent and she cannot be evicted from her shared household in view of the protection offered by Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Sections 3 and 4 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 - HELD THAT - In this case both pieces of legislation are intended to deal with salutary aspects of public welfare and interest. The PWDV Act 2005 was intended to deal with the problems of domestic violence which as the Statements of Objects and Reasons sets out is widely prevalent but has remained largely invisible in the public domain . The Statements of Objects and Reasons indicates that while Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code created a penal offence out of a woman s subjection to cruelty by her husband or relative the civil law did not address its phenomenon in its entirety. Hence consistent with the provisions of Articles 14 15 and 21 of the Constitution Parliament enacted a legislation which would provide for a remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect the woman from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society . A significant object of the legislation is to provide for and recognize the rights of women to secure housing and to recognize the right of a woman to reside in a matrimonial home or a shared household whether or not she has any title or right in the shared household. Allowing the Senior Citizens Act 2007 to have an overriding force and effect in all situations irrespective of competing entitlements of a woman to a right in a shared household within the meaning of the PWDV Act 2005 would defeat the object and purpose which the Parliament sought to achieve in enacting the latter legislation. 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. Hence the right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act 2007. On construing the provisions of subSection (2) of section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act 2007 it is evident that it applies to a situation where a senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred. On the other hand the appellant s simple plea is that the suit premises constitute her shared household within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the PWDV Act 2005 - The fact that specific proceedings under the PWDV Act 2005 had not been instituted when the application under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 was filed should not lead to a situation where the enforcement of an order of eviction deprives her from pursuing her claim of entitlement under the law. The inability of a woman to access judicial remedies may as this case exemplifies be a consequence of destitution ignorance or lack of resources. Even otherwise we are clearly of the view that recourse to the summary procedure contemplated by the Senior Citizen Act 2007 was not available for the purpose of facilitating strategies that are designed to defeat the claim of the appellant in respect of a shared household. A shared household would have to be interpreted to include the residence where the appellant had been jointly residing with her husband. Merely because the ownership of the property has been subsequently transferred to her in-laws (Second and Third Respondents) or that her estranged spouse (Fourth respondent) is now residing separately is no ground to deprive the appellant of the protection that was envisaged under the PWDV Act 2005. The claim of the appellant that the premises constitute a shared household within the meaning of the PWDV Act 2005 would have to be determined by the appropriate forum. The claim cannot simply be obviated by evicting the appellant in exercise of the summary powers entrusted by the Senior Citizens Act 2007. The Second and Third Respondents are at liberty to make a subsequent application under Section 10 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 for alteration of the maintenance allowance before the appropriate forum - Appeal allowed subject to directions issued.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of authorities under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 to order eviction.
2. Interpretation of the term "shared household" under the PWDV Act 2005.
3. Harmonization of competing reliefs under the PWDV Act 2005 and the Senior Citizens Act 2007.
4. Rights of senior citizens versus rights of a woman to reside in a shared household.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Authorities under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 to Order Eviction:
The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 to decree her eviction. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner directed the appellant to vacate the premises, which was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka. The appellant argued that the Senior Citizens Act 2007 does not provide for an order of eviction and that the authorities had no jurisdiction to direct her removal from the premises. The Supreme Court noted that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 may have the authority to order eviction if it is necessary to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parent. However, this remedy can be granted only after considering the competing claims in the dispute.

2. Interpretation of the Term "Shared Household" under the PWDV Act 2005:
The appellant asserted that the premises constituted a "shared household" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the PWDV Act 2005. The Supreme Court emphasized that the definition of "shared household" is exhaustive, covering a household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived in a domestic relationship with the respondent. The Court referred to its judgment in Satish Chandra Ahuja vs Sneha Ahuja, which clarified that a shared household includes a household owned or tenanted by either the aggrieved person or the respondent, or a household belonging to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of any right, title, or interest in the shared household.

3. Harmonization of Competing Reliefs under the PWDV Act 2005 and the Senior Citizens Act 2007:
The Supreme Court highlighted the need to harmonize the provisions of the PWDV Act 2005 and the Senior Citizens Act 2007. Section 36 of the PWDV Act 2005 stipulates that its provisions are in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law. The Court noted that both pieces of legislation aim to address public welfare and interest, with the PWDV Act 2005 focusing on protecting women from domestic violence and ensuring their right to secure housing, and the Senior Citizens Act 2007 aiming to protect senior citizens from destitution. The Court concluded that the right of a woman to secure a residence order in a shared household cannot be defeated by an order of eviction under the Senior Citizens Act 2007.

4. Rights of Senior Citizens versus Rights of a Woman to Reside in a Shared Household:
The Supreme Court recognized the competing rights of senior citizens and women residing in shared households. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 should grant remedies that do not nullify the protections under the PWDV Act 2005. The Court directed that the appellant's claim that the premises constitute a shared household should be determined by the appropriate forum under the PWDV Act 2005. The Court set aside the order of eviction and directed the respondents to restore the electricity connection to the premises and refrain from forcibly dispossessing the appellant or creating any third-party rights for one year to allow the appellant to pursue her remedies.

Summation:
The Supreme Court set aside the eviction order against the appellant, recognizing her right to claim the premises as a shared household under the PWDV Act 2005. The Court directed the appellant to pursue her remedies under the PWDV Act 2005 and provided interim protections to ensure her right to reside in the shared household. The Court emphasized the need to harmonize the provisions of the PWDV Act 2005 and the Senior Citizens Act 2007 to protect the rights of both vulnerable groups. The appeal was allowed, and costs were awarded to the appellant.