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 "thisturns outtobeacaseof ungrateful son whointermsofcontention ofplaintiff (mother), not only harassedhismotherbut alsoas an afterthought against his mother's wish intended to continue to forciblyoccupy the premises owned by his mother."
"Thesuitisdecreedwithcostinfavourofplaintiffand againstdefendant(son).Defendantisdirectedtohandoverthe possessionofsecond floor of property at Tilak Nagarto the plaintiffandisfurtherdirectedtopaydamagesatRs10,000 permonth," 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 here 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, "Byvirtueoflegalnotice, defendantwascalleduponto handover the possession of the subject premises to plaintiff, in which he failed."
"As permissiveuserhecancontinueoccupying thesubject premisesonlyasper will andwishoflicensor. As and when licenseis revoked,statusof defendantbecomesthatofan unauthorisedoccupiermaking himliabletopaydamagesfor unauthorisedoccupation," it said, directing that the son was liabletopaydamagestothe mother.
