Woman sues mother for evicting her; judge dismisses her claim of right to stay indefinitely

A woman who had lived under her parents’ roof for 27 years was evicted by her elderly mother in 2021.

Madam Rita Kishinchand Bhojwani, 62, then sued her mother Maya Kishinchand, 91, claiming that the eviction was unlawful because it breached her right to stay in the apartment rent-free for the rest of her life.

She also sued the family company, HVS Properties, which owns the condominium unit at The Seafront on Meyer, as well as a director of the company.

The eviction took place amid a spate of legal actions that Madam Bhojwani had started against her older brother Sunil, which her mother stepped in to oppose.

The defendants argued that the eviction was justified due to her unreasonable behaviour.

Apart from starting legal disputes, she also constantly took videos of family members, clashed with the family’s domestic helpers, and changed the letterbox lock.

The defendants said her behaviour stemmed from a decision by her parents to will all their properties to her brother.

Her mother testified that Madam Bhojwani preferred cash and properties, even though a US$5 million (S$6.5 million) trust fund had been set up to provide for her.

On Jan 28, 2025, the High Court dismissed the lawsuit.

Judicial Commissioner Christopher Tan issued written grounds on April 28 for his decision.

The judge said the evidence that Madam Bhojwani presented did not support her claim, even at face value.

Her evidence lacked detail and credibility, and was internally inconsistent, he added.

Madam Bhojwani had taken the unconventional step of issuing a subpoena to call her mother as her witness – a move the judge described as a gamble.

After her mother testified, the defendants made a submission that they had no case to answer.

This meant the defendants chose not to present evidence because they contended that the plaintiff had not established a case which required an answer.

The judge accepted the submission.

He noted: “Once (the mother’s) evidence was baked into the mix and the plaintiff’s evidence scrutinised holistically, the cracks at the seams of the plaintiff’s case were highly visible.”

Madam Bhojwani’s father, Mr Kishinchand Tiloomal Bhojwani, set up the real estate company in 1968.

Her mother was a director of the company. The other director, Ms Win Phyu Shwe, has held the position since 2019.

Madam Bhojwani and her son moved in with her parents in 1994. She is still married to her husband, though they do not live together.

In 2010, Madam Bhojwani and her parents moved into the apartment at The Seafront on Meyer.

Her mother paid a monthly rent of $6,000 to the company.

Madam Bhojwani received a monthly salary of $2,000 from the company for tending to the properties it owned.

For many years, she also received a monthly allowance of $1,000 from her mother.

In 2021, Madam Bhojwani took legal action against her brother to vie for control of her father’s financial affairs.

She also applied for a personal protection order against her brother, alleging domestic violence.

Her mother sided with her brother in these cases.

In August 2021, her mother and Ms Win passed two board resolutions to evict Madam Bhojwani.

On the evening of Aug 25, 2021, she was blocked by a security guard from entering the apartment, while boxes of her belongings lined the corridor.

At the time, Mr Bhojwani, 93, was mentally incapacitated. He died in November 2024.

Madam Bhojwani alleged that her brother had orchestrated the eviction. She claimed she had a right to stay in the apartment because of an “arrangement”.

She added that because of representations made to her, she had served as her parents’ caregiver instead of seeking “meaningful, paid employment”.

She argued that her sacrifices impacted her ability to be financially independent, and that it would be “unconscionable” for the company to renege on the arrangement.

Her mother, however, contended that as the legal occupier of the apartment, she had the right to ask her daughter to leave.

The defendants also denied the existence of the purported arrangement.

The judge said it was a “struggle” trying to make sense of Madam Bhojwani’s contentions.

She had a “propensity to ramble” but could not give precise details of the arrangement, he noted.

Her affidavit failed to cast light on the exact representations made to her, and her oral testimony was too unreliable to pass muster, he said.

At one point, Madam Bhojwani insisted it was her right to live in the apartment for as long as her family wanted.

Shortly after, however, she said her parents wanted her to live with them for as long as she wished.

Under cross-examination, Madam Bhojwani maintained she had taken care of her parents out of love and nothing else.

This undermined her case because she effectively conceded that her acts did not come about because of any representations.

After meeting her lawyer, she tried to recant the concession the next morning.

The judge rejected this, saying she failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the about-face.

Lawyers Mahmood Gaznavi and Rezza Gaznavi acted for the company and the director, while Mr Christopher Anand Daniel and Ms Ganga Avadiar acted for the mother. Madam Bhojwani’s lawyer was Mr Ushan Premaratne.

Selina Lum is senior law correspondent at The Straits Times.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Rita Kishinchand Bhojwani v HVS Properties Pte Ltd and others [2025] SGHC 80

Directors who fail to oversee firms set up for clients will likely be jailed: High Court