New Delhi: A Delhi court has directed a son to vacate his mother’s house after she filed a harassment complaint against him, observing he was being “ungrateful and selfish.”
Terming it as an “unfortunate litigation” by a mother against her son, the court also directed the man to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as damages to his mother who had lodged a complaint against the couple in 2012.
“One of the saddest things in the world is to see a child grow up wearing his mother down, being ungrateful and selfish, having no accountability of his actions and continuing through life thinking nothing is his fault.
“This is such unfortunate litigation filed for recovery of possession, damages, mesne profit (profits accruing during the rightful owner’s exclusion from his property) and permanent injunction filed by a mother against her son,” Additional District Judge Savita Rao said.
The court’s verdict came in the woman’s favour on her complaint against her son alleging that he and his wife forcibly occupied the second floor of her house in Tilak Nagar in West Delhi and were harassing and misbehaving with her.
The judge said “this turns out to be a case of ungrateful son who in terms of contention of plaintiff (mother), not only harassed his mother but also as an afterthought against his mother’s wish intended to continue to forcibly occupy the premises owned by his mother.”
“The suit is decreed with cost in favour of plaintiff and against defendant (son). Defendant is directed to hand over the possession of second floor of property at Tilak Nagar to the plaintiff and is further directed to pay damages at Rs. 10,000 per month,” the court said.
The 65-year-old widowed woman had lodged a complaint in 2012 alleging that her son was forcibly living on the second floor of her residential property in Delhi and had threatened her when she had asked them to help her financially by paying rent for the accommodation.
A legal notice was served on the son to vacate the premises, the complaint said. But the son denied in court about having received any such notice.
The court relied on the complainant’s statement and documents on record and said, “By virtue of legal notice, defendant was called upon to hand over the possession of the subject premises to plaintiff, in which he failed.”
“As permissive user he can continue occupying the subject premises only as per will and wish of licensor. As and when license is revoked, status of defendant becomes that of an unauthorised occupier making him liable to pay damages for unauthorised occupation,” it said, directing that the son was liable to pay damages to the mother.