Without beating about the bush, let me come straight to the nub of the matter. Let me start by first and foremost mentioning here that in a landmark judgment the Delhi High Court on November 29, 2016 held that a son, irrespective of his marital status, has no legal right to live in the self-acquired house of his parents and can reside there only at their mercy. This landmark judgment has come as a huge respite to those old parents who are ill treated by sons and are often made to suffer for no fault of theirs. This landmark judgment makes it clear that sons have to live in parents house only at parents discretion and have to vacate the house if asked to do so by parents.

While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that the Delhi High Court has minced no words in making it absolutely clear that merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house when their relations were cordial does not mean they have to bear his burden throughout life. Justice Pratibha Rani of Delhi High Court set the record straight on this score when she said in most unambiguous terms that:
Where the house is self-acquired, the son whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live there. Needless to say, sons now have to always bear this landmark judgment and think thousand times before ever misbehaving with their aged parents and laying first claim to the parents house at any given point of time.

For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that the Delhi High Court while dismissing an appeal by a man challenging a trial court order which had passed a decree in favour of his parents also made it crystal clear that only because parents have allowed the son to live in their house as long as their relations are cordial does not mean they have to bear his 'burden' throughout his life.

Justice Pratibha Rani while elaborating on this point sought to make it absolutely clear by pointing out that:
Where the house is self-acquired house of the parents, sons whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live in that house and he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents up to the time the parents allow. This landmark judgment confers unfettered power on parents over their self-acquired house to evict their sons whenever they want from their house and sons can stay there only up to the time the parents are willing to allow them to stay there.

Be it noted, Justice Pratibha Rani of the Delhi High Court also stated in no uncertain terms that:
Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial does not mean that the parents have to bear his burden throughout his life.

The Delhi High Court was hearing an appeal against a lower court's order asking a man and his wife to vacate the first floor of his parents property in West Delhi while dismissing their appeal. The younger son of a West Delhi senior citizen, the appellant had obtained an ad interim injunction against being dispossessed of the property during the pendency of the case before the High Court.

To put things in perspective, the elderly father told the court that out of love and affection for his son, he and his wife allowed his son and his wife to live on the first floor of their house, while the elder son and his wife were on the second floor. The parents while narrating their harrowing experiences lamented that, Their sons as well as their wives made life hell for them so much so that they were not even paying the electricity bills. This was certainly too much for parents to bear it quietly!

As things stand, the Delhi High Court noted in its judgment dated November 24 that, The old parents were constrained to make various complaints to the police and also issued public notice on 5th January, 2007 and 17th May, 2012 disowning their sons and debarring them from their self-acquired property. Both the sons and daughters-in-law had contested the suit before the trial court while denying the allegations.

They had also claimed that they were the co-owners of the property as they had contributed towards its purchase and construction.

As it turned out, Justice Pratibha Rani after hearing both the sides was convinced that the parents claim were more forceful. It is a no-brainer that she therefore ruled in their favour very decisively. Justice Pratibha noted that the son and his wife were unable to prove that they were the co-owners of the property while his parents have established their contention on the basis of documentary evidence. It must also be noted here that this landmark judgment is for a parent's self-acquired house which should not be confused with a Hindu person's birthright to ancestral property over which sons too can legitimately stake their claim.

On the face of it, it is quite ostensible that since the situation became unbearable, they filed a suit seeking a mandatory injunction directing them to vacate and also to restrain them from creating any third party interest in the property. The dispute was referred for mediation but that effort failed. In September, the son agreed to pay Rs 3,500 per month to the parents.
Truth be told, he then told the court that he had no money to pay.

At the next hearing, he refused to pay money to his parents and tried to delay the hearing on various grounds. Justice Pratibha Rani of Delhi High Court took strong objection to this and made it known that all this cannot be allowed to go on indefinitely when she said that:
The appellants cannot be permitted to abuse the process of law by seeking adjournment on one pretext or the other especially when they are enjoying ad-interim stay against their dispossession from this Court.

To say the least, Justice Pratibha Rani said the respondents [the parents] may not have proved themselves to be the owner of the property as in the case of acquiring a title under a registered sale deed, but surely they would have better rights/entitlement to seek possession of the suit property from his sons who were permitted to live on the first floor only out of love and affection.

All said and done, this landmark judgment has come as a huge respite to those parents who are ill-treated by their sons. This landmark judgment is a grim reminder to all sons that you cannot keep on staying at your parents house at your own sweet will. On the contrary, sons can stay at parents house only at the sweet will of parents and they are not obliged to keep them and bear their burden throughout their life. This landmark judgment will go a long way in making sure that sons give their parents their due regards if they want to stay at their parents house and always maintain cordial relations with them because they have no right that can give them preference over parents under any circumstances now.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut-250001, UP