Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be Used As Tool For Summary Eviction: Bombay High Court Quashes Eviction Of Son

The Bombay High Court on Monday (December 8) held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial act which is meant for safeguarding the rights of the vulnerable senior citizens and that it cannot be misused (by the senior citizens) as a tool for seeking eviction of their children without following the law.

A division bench of Justices Riyaz Chagla and Farhan Dubash set aside order passed by a Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, both of which evicted a 53-year-old man from his bungalow situated in plush Andheri area in Mumbai.

The judges noted that the parents of the petitioner never lived/resided with him in the bungalow in question, though it was owned by the parents. The judges noted that the parents lived separately in a four-bedroom flat in a nearby society and had permitted the petitioner son to live in the bungalow without paying any monies to them.

The judges further noted that in the application filed by the father, initially, under section 5 of the Act of 2007, the parents did not raise any complaint with regards to non-maintenance and neither did they seek any financial support from the children.

"The Act is a beneficial statute intended to safeguard the vulnerable (senior citizen), but it cannot be (mis) used by the senior citizen as a tool for summary eviction without the fulfilment of statutory requirements. In the present case, we find that the said application does not satisfy the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and is therefore not maintainable. Accordingly, the eviction order could not have been passed by the Tribunal and upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, vide the appellate order," the judges said in the order.

The senior citizen has not claimed any maintenance from the Petitioner and the order of eviction is not in furtherance thereof, the bench noted.

Moreover, neither of the two authorities viz. the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal have considered and/or applied their mind to the averments made in the said application, the judges said.

The only averment, the judges noted, made in the initial application (justifying the requirement and need of the subject premises by the senior citizen) is that the senior citizen is suffering from diabetes, arthritis, leg pain and has difficulty in walking and needs medical assistance on a daily basis and therefore, it would be convenient for him to stay on the ground floor of the subject premises.

"In our opinion, this is a vague assertion and one, which is completely bereft of any details and/or particulars. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the senior citizen is desirous of leaving his own residential premises (which is stated to be a 1600 sq. ft. apartment comprising of four bedrooms) and move to the subject premises which is a bungalow comprising ground plus one upper floor, especially when he has difficulty in walking and as a result, would not be in a position to conveniently enjoy the entire subject premises. Moreover, since the senior citizen has never resided in the subject premises, this is not a case where there is any sentiment attachment of the senior citizen to occupying it," the judges observed in the order.

The judges pointed out that the provisions of the Act in question, enables a senior citizen to file an application under section 5 if s/he is unable to maintain himself from his own earnings or from property owned by him.

The said section further prescribes that the obligation of children to maintain the senior citizen extends to the needs of such senior citizen so that he may lead a normal life. Section 5 contains provisions relating to the application which the senior citizen can make for maintenance. Sub-section (2) enables the Tribunal to order monthly allowance to be paid to the senior citizen towards interim maintenance, the bench explained.

"In these circumstances, when the senior citizen has made no claim for maintenance, we fail to see how the said application which has been filed by the senior citizen under section 5(2) of the Act, is maintainable, in the first place. This position appears to have been completely overlooked, both in the eviction order and also in the appellate order," the judges said.

In the instant case, the judges noted that the senior citizen is financially well-to-do and owns several other immovable properties, both residential and commercial and instead, the record reveals that the Petitioner (if evicted from the subject premises) would not have any other roof over his head.

Therefore, the bench quashed and set aside the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal's orders.

Appearance:

Jitendra Gorakh Megh appeared as a party-in-person.

Assistant Government Pleader Suraj Gupte represented the State.

Advocates Kapil Moye, Eesha Jaifalkar and SR Page represented the Senior Citizen.

Case Title: Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs Additional Collecter & Appellate Tribunal [Writ Petition (L) 31614 of 2025]

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment