Senior Citizens Act Envisions Ensuring Basic Needs, Not Just Annulment of Property Transfers: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Maintenance Tribunal Order
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order of the Maintenance Tribunal which had annulled several gift deeds and directed the petitioner, Nitin Rajendra Gupta, to vacate flats gifted to him by his father under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act). The court observed that the provision of residence is a basic amenity essential for the welfare of senior citizens.
Legal Background and Facts of the Case:
The controversy centered around the Tribunal’s application of Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act, which allows for the annulment of property transfers if basic amenities and physical needs are not provided to the senior citizen transferor. The Tribunal had annulled the gift deeds of flats located in Mumbai, ruling that they were made with the condition of providing basic amenities which the son failed to meet.
Detailed Court Assessment:
Justice Sandeep V. Marne noted that while the gift deeds did not explicitly state the provision of amenities as a condition, the intention to provide residence and basic needs could be inferred. He emphasized, “Though the gift deeds do not contain specific recital/covenant that the same are executed subject to the condition of provision of basic amenities and physical needs, existence of such condition can be inferred… both on account of covenant for providing residence to Respondent No. 2 as well as admission of liability to provide residence to him by Petitioner.”
The judgment pointed out that the purpose of Section 23(1) is not to annul property transfers per se but to ensure that senior citizens’ basic needs are met. The court highlighted that the objective is the welfare of senior citizens, which should guide the interpretation and application of the statutory provisions.
Court’s Decision: The High Court set aside the Maintenance Tribunal’s order and directed that the petitioner should provide residence to his father in one of the flats (Flat No. 708 in Autumn Grove CHS) along with a monthly maintenance sum. The judge held, “The provision of Section 23(1) of Senior Citizens Act cannot be used as a machinery for settling property disputes between the heirs of senior citizens… the objective behind the Act is to ensure that senior citizens are taken care of by the children.”
Date of Decision: April 10, 2024
Nitin Rajendra Gupta v. Deputy Collector, Mumbai and others
