The Bombay High Court has ruled that parents cannot seek eviction of their children under the Senior Citizens Act without proving neglect or claiming maintenance, warning against misuse of the law for property disputes and possession battles.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has ruled that authorities cannot issue an eviction order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, unless the senior citizen first makes a claim for maintenance and proves neglect or inability to sustain themselves. The Court held that the Act cannot be used solely as a tool for eviction or for resolving property disputes.
A Division Bench of Justices R I Chagla and Farhan P Dubash set aside an August 26, 2025, eviction order issued by the Parents and Citizens Maintenance Tribunal and an October 1, 2025, appellate order that had upheld it. The Bench stated that both orders were contrary to the Act’s statutory scheme, as there was no claim of maintenance, no evidence of neglect, and no need for protection.
The Court noted that the senior citizen:
- Never sought monetary maintenance
- Never resided in the disputed premises
- Owned several commercial and residential properties
- Lived comfortably and independently with his wife in a 1600 sq. ft. apartment
- Made no allegation of harassment or ill-treatment
Despite this, the Tribunal ordered eviction on the ground that living in the disputed premises would be “convenient” for the senior citizen. The High Court said this reasoning was vague and unsupported, especially since the senior citizen had previously permitted the petitioner to stay in the property and had not provided any need-based justification.
The Bench clarified that Sections 4 and 5 of the Act require a finding that a senior citizen is unable to maintain himself and is neglected by children or relatives. Only then may eviction be ordered as an incidental measure to secure maintenance or protection.
The Court relied on multiple precedents, including:
- S Vanitha v Deputy Commissioner – eviction only to enforce maintenance rights
- Ranjana Rajkumar Makharia v Mayadevi Makharia – the Act cannot recover property except as a maintenance measure
- Ritika Prashant Jasani v Anjana Jasani – eviction requires proof of neglect and examination of the property title
- Nitin Rajendra Gupta v Collector – The Act cannot be used to settle property disputes
The Court found that the eviction demand appeared to be connected to a pending 2019 partition suit. It stated that the Act cannot be used to bypass civil litigation or undermine undertakings given in court.
Finding a total absence of statutory prerequisites, the Court:
- Quashed the Tribunal and Appellate orders
- Allowed the writ petition
- Reiterated that the Act is a beneficial law meant to protect vulnerable seniors, not a mechanism for property recovery
Case Title:
Jitendra Gorakh Megh v Additional Collector & Anr.
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 31614 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here To Read More Reports on Senior Citizens
