The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the fact that the occupants themselves are senior citizens does not confer upon them an overriding or indefeasible right to continue in occupation of premises against the wishes of another senior citizen. The Court observed that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is intended to protect senior citizens from neglect, abuse and harassment, and pendency of proceedings concerning land title is not an embargo upon the exercise of protective jurisdiction.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was hearing an intra-Court writ appeal filed challenging the order of a Single Judge which had upheld orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal directing eviction of the writ appellants from the residential premises occupied by them. The proceedings arose from a complaint by the man's 93-year-old mother seeking eviction of the appellants on allegations of harassment, abuse and apprehension to her life.

The appellants contended that the Maintenance Tribunal was a creature of statute and could exercise only such jurisdiction as was specifically conferred upon it by the Act. They claimed independent title over the property on the basis of a registered sale deed and argued that the dispute relating to ownership and possession could not be summarily adjudicated by the Maintenance Tribunal.

The Court agreed that the Maintenance Tribunal is not a substitute for a civil Court and complicated questions of title cannot be finally adjudicated in proceedings under the Act. However, it held that the mere assertion of an independent title by the appellants could not, by itself, render the proceedings non-maintainable, observing:

“… the mere assertion of an independent title by the writ appellants cannot, by itself, render the proceedings before the Tribunal non maintainable, particularly when the relief granted by the Tribunal was not in the nature of a declaration of title but was directed towards protecting respondent No.3 from alleged harassment…”

The Court further refuted the contention that the absence of a specific claim for monetary maintenance rendered the proceedings under the Act non-maintainable.

“The expression "maintenance and welfare" occurring in the statute cannot be construed in a narrow or pedantic manner so as to confine the protection available to a senior citizen only to payment of a monthly monetary allowance… A senior citizen may be financially independent and yet be subjected to neglect, harassment or interference with her peaceful residence,” the Court remarked.

The Court further held that the pendency of proceedings concerning mutation or the assertion of title did not completely denude the Tribunal of its jurisdiction under the Act. The ultimate title could be determined by the competent civil or revenue forum, but such dispute could not operate as an embargo upon the statutory authority exercising its protective jurisdiction in respect of an aged senior citizen residing in the premises.

The Court observed that the appellants' own senior citizen status did not confer upon them an overriding or indefeasible right to continue in occupation against the wishes of the respondent. It held that such a finding based on the material available cannot be interfered merely because another view of the material may be possible.

The Court accordingly found no perversity, jurisdictional infirmity or error of law in the order of the Single Judge and dismissed the writ appeal.

Case Title: Devendra Khanna & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [WA No. 669 of 2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order