'Application By Senior Citizen For Eviction Of Relative Maintainable Even Without Claiming Monetary Maintenance': Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that an application filed by a senior citizen seeking eviction of a child or relative from property in which the senior citizen has rights is maintainable even if no monetary maintenance is claimed. The Court observed that the definition of “maintenance” under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, includes provision for...
The Bombay High Court has held that an application filed by a senior citizen seeking eviction of a child or relative from property in which the senior citizen has rights is maintainable even if no monetary maintenance is claimed. The Court observed that the definition of “maintenance” under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, includes provision for residence and protection necessary for a senior citizen to live a normal and dignified life.
Justice N. J. Jamadar was hearing a writ petition filed by Bholenath Mevalal Nishad challenging the order of the Maintenance Tribunal directing him to vacate a residential flat belonging to his mother, a 73-year-old senior citizen. The eviction order dated 4 March 2025 had been passed by the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal by judgment dated 30 October 2025. The petitioner opposed the application, contending that the Tribunal could entertain only applications for maintenance and could not pass an order of eviction simpliciter.
The High Court examined the statutory scheme of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and noted that the definition of “maintenance” under Section 2(b) includes provision for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance. The Court observed that the legislative object of the Act is to ensure that senior citizens are able to live a normal, dignified and secure life, and therefore the obligation of children or relatives to maintain them extends beyond mere financial assistance.
Emphasising that the Act is a beneficial legislation enacted to protect elderly persons from neglect and harassment, the Court held that the obligation cast upon children or relatives under Section 4 includes allowing the senior citizen to reside peacefully in their own property. The Court highlighted that the definition of maintenance has both positive and negative obligations, and there is an obligation on the child/relative not to dispossess a senior citizen of her own residence.
The Court further observed that it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule that an eviction application is not maintainable merely because the senior citizen has not sought monetary maintenance. Such an interpretation, the Court noted, would defeat the very object of the Act.
“… it cannot be laid down as an immutable and absolute rule of law that the application for eviction simplicitor sans the prayer for monetary maintenance is not maintainable, even when the senior citizen claims that she has been dispossessed of her property or she requires the property to generate income out of the said property to lead a normal life,” the Court observed.
Holding that the Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal had correctly exercised their jurisdiction to protect the senior citizen's right to residence and dignified living, the High Court declined to interfere with the eviction order and dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Bholenath Mevalal Nishad v. Shyamdulari Mevalal Nishad & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 16375 of 2025]