JITENDRA GORAKH MEGH v. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND APPELLANT TRIBUNAL MUMBAI SUBURBAN DIST.
Eviction under Senior Citizens Act: Maintenance Claim Necessary; Partition Suit and Prior Permission Relevant.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:23802-DB
Decision Date: 08-12-2025
List of Laws
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007; Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007; Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007; Section 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007; Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Societies Registration Act, 1860
- Facts: A senior citizen, a retired IAS officer, filed an application under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking the eviction of his son (the Petitioner) from a property owned by him. The senior citizen did not reside in the said property and did not seek any maintenance from his son. The son had filed a partition suit claiming a share in the property as ancestral property. The son also presented a written declaration from the senior citizen permitting him to reside in the premises.
- Procedural Posture: The Sub-Divisional Officer, acting as the Presiding Officer of the Parents and Citizens Maintenance Tribunal, allowed the senior citizen's application and directed the son to vacate the premises. The son's appeal to the Additional Collector, acting as the Appellate Tribunal, was dismissed. The son then filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the appellate order.
- Issue: Can an eviction order be passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, without any claim for maintenance being made by the senior citizen, and where the son has already filed a partition suit claiming the property as ancestral?
- Holding: No, the eviction order cannot be sustained. The High Court quashed the appellate order and the original eviction order.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Act is intended to safeguard vulnerable senior citizens, but it cannot be misused as a tool for summary eviction without fulfilling the statutory requirements. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act deal with maintenance, and since the senior citizen did not claim any maintenance, the application was not maintainable. The Court also noted that the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal failed to consider the son's claim to the property in the pending partition suit and the written declaration permitting him to reside there. The Court emphasized that eviction should be an incident of the enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection, which was not the case here. The Court also considered that the senior citizen was financially well-off and the son would be left without a roof over his head if evicted.
🔒 For Members Only