Can parents demand rent from their children? written by Diksha Sharma student at Government Law College in Mumbai
Sachin & Anr versus Jhabbu Lal & Anr
The applicants Sachin and Sanjay, together with their wives, were residents of the first and second floors of their parents’ self-acquired property. The respondents, namely Jhabbu Lal and Smt. Raj Devi, parents of appeal leaders, had directed her younger son, Sachin, to pay Rs. 3,500 / – monthly as rent. The complainant failed to fulfill his obligation; As a result, an injunction has been filed. It was suggested that the matter be examined through mediation. However, it was a “non-runner”. The parties went to the high court to seek relief.
• Whether the application of an injunction as requested by the complainants exists?
• Are the complainants co-owners of the property?
• Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Allegation of the complainants:
The complainant alleged that he was unable to meet the financial obligation imposed on him. It was also alleged that they contributed to the construction of the property that they consider to be co-owners of the property and that they are not required to pay to stay in the premises that they partially own. Therefore, it was prayed that the appeal for an injunction would be rejected.
Claim of the respondents:
The applicants’ mother alleged that their sons and daughters-in-law were behaving inappropriately, making their livelihood miserable. In addition, the complainants did not assume responsibility for submitting payment of electricity bills. As the respondents are old citizens, they are unable to make the financial payments on their own and the complainants are constantly in default. Therefore it was prayed that a permanent and compelling injunction would be issued.
Comment of the Court:
On the basis of the documents submitted by the complainants, i.e. the general power of attorney, the sales agreement, the letter of receipt, the affidavit, etc., no contribution made by the complainants is identified as satisfactory, implying that the parents are the exclusive owners of the self-acquired property. The house was given to the applicants because of their parents’ love and affection. The court made it clear that the son, married or unmarried, has no legal right to live in the house and that he is only at the mercy of the parents until they allow it. Warm relationships do not require parents to bear the burden of their sons for a lifetime. There is no reason for the court to exercise section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The court upheld a decree that issued a permanent injunction and ordered the parties to bear their own costs.