Staying In Parents’ House – A Matter of Right?

Introduction

In the usual American/Western way
of life, a son stays with his parents till the age of 16 year and thereafter,
he goes to college in another State after which he lives in his own house.
Living with one’s parents in their home is very rare and unusual. However, in
India the matter is entirely opposite. An Indian son continues to live with his
parents in their home even after becoming a major and in several cases even
after starting a family of his own. Strange as it appears to several
Westerners, this is the usual way of life in India.  However, what happens when the parents want
to evict their adult son from their home? Can they do so or does the son have a
vested right to reside in their house?

The Delhi High Court had an
occasion to consider such an interesting issue in the case of Sachin vs.
Jhabbu Lal, RSA 136/2016.

Facts of the Case

A senior citizen couple were
residing on the ground floor of their two-storied home in Delhi. They had
allowed their married elder son and his wife to live on the 2^nd floor
and their married younger son and his wife on the 1^st floor.  They did so on account of their natural love
and affection for their sons.

The parents claimed that the
entire house was self-acquired by them out of their own funds. The property
documents, i.e., the General Power of Attorney, the Agreement to Sell, the
Receipt and their Will all were in favour of the father. The sons did not have
any documentary evidence to prove that they were the rightful owners or that
the sons contributed to the purchase of the home.

The parents and their sons could
not get along due to constant quarrels. Matters came to such a headway that the
parents filed police complaints against their sons’ families. They also issued
a public notice disowning their sons and evicting them from their self acquired
property. The parents approached Court for a decree directing them to vacate
the two floors in their possession and also to restrain them from creating any
third party interest in the property.

The sons denied the parents’ claim
that the property was self acquired and also denied their claims of being the
exclusive owners. Their contention was that they have also contributed to the
purchase of the property and construction costs and hence, they should be
regarded as co-owners. Accordingly, the suit for eviction failed.

The Delhi High Court’s Judgment

The Court observed that the sons
were not able to substantiate any evidence to prove that the parents were not
exclusive owners of their property. Further, they have not denied that the
property stands in their father’s name and have not been able to claim any
ownership rights separate from their parents. They could not prove that they
have contributed to the purchase of the property.

The Court held that where the
house is a self acquired house of the parents, a son 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 upto such time as his parents allow.
Merely because the parents have allowed him 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 their life. Since there was no evidence to prove the
sons’ right in the property and on the contrary, there was evidence to prove
that the property was the sole property of the parents, it was clear that the
sons could be evicted by their parents.

This is an important and correct
verdict given by the Delhi High Court. There have been many instances of
children forcing their parents to allow them to reside in homes belonging to
their parents. This decision would come as a shot in the arm for such parents.
However, it must be noted that in case the property is ancestral or cost of
which is contributed by the sons then this decision would have no application.
Of course, what is ancestral is a question of fact and would depend upon the
circumstances of each case. Generally, ancestral property refers to property
belonging to at least 3 generations, i.e., one’s parents and grandparents.
However, it may be noted that in case the parents gift the house to the son
during their lifetime then he becomes the rightful owner and claim right of
ownership over the same.  

Dwelling House

Another ancillary factor to be
borne in mind is the amendment by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 to
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in respect to dwelling houses. The erstwhile
section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 
provided that when a Hindu dies without a will, i.e., intestate, and he
has left behind Class I male and female heirs and his property includes a
dwelling house, then the female heirs could not claim a partition of such
dwelling house till such time as the male heirs chose to divide their
respective shares then. However, she was entitled to a right of residence
therein. The erstwhile section carved out an exception that if such female heir
was a daughter, then she was entitled to a right to residence in the
dwelling-house only if she was unmarried or had been deserted / separated from
her husband, or was a widow.  Hence, the
females were dependent on the males  to
claim their right of partition. This provision was intended to ensure that sons
living in their parents’ home were not rendered homeless by a claim for
partition by their sisters. The Supreme Court in Narasimha Murti vs.
Susheelbai, AIR 1996 SC 1826 has defined the expression `dwelling
house’by stating that it is referable to the dwelling house in which the
intestate Hindu was living at the time of his/her death; he/she intended that
his/her children would continue to normally occupy and enjoy it; The intestate
Hindu regarded it as his permanent abode. It further held that section 23 (as
it stood before its deletion in 2005), limited 
the right of the Class-I female heirs of a Hindu who died intestate
while both male and female heirs were entitled to a share in the property left
by the Hindu owner including the dwelling house. It was an exception to the
general partition. So long as the male heir(s) chose not to partition the
dwelling house, the female class-I heir had been denied the right to claim its
partition subject to a further exception, namely, the right to residence
therein by the female class-I heir under specified circumstances. In other
words, the dwelling house remained indivisible. 
But the moment the male heir chose to let out the dwelling house to a
stranger/third party, as a tenant or a licensee, the dwelling house became
partible. Here, the conduct of the male heir was the cause and the entitlement
of the female Class-I heir was the effect and the latter’s claim for partition
got ripened into right as they were to sue for partition of the dwelling house,
whether or not the proviso came into play.

This section has been deleted
altogether with effect from 9^th September 2005. Now, a female heir
can ask for a partition of the house property where the coparceners are
residing. Thus, this is another scenario where the sons could be rendered
homeless.

Conclusion