Bombay High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners aggrieved by the Appellate Tribunal’s order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the ‘ Senior Citizens Act’), challenged the decision of the Appellate Tribunal setting aside the order passed by the Senior Citizens Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’) which had ordered eviction of the son and daughter-in-law from the house owned by the petitioners. A single Judge Bench of Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J., held that the Appellate Tribunal had displayed an indifferent attitude towards the issues raised by the senior citizens and found the order unsustainable in law which deserved to be set aside.
Relying on relevant precedents, including Bombay High Court’s Division Bench verdict in Dattatrey Shivaji Mane v. Lilabai Shivaji Mane, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2246, the Court reaffirmed that Senior Citizens Act was enacted for the benefit and protection of senior citizen from his children or grant children; and that a senior citizen’s application seeking eviction from property can be entertained within the mandate of the legsislation.
Background:
The petitioners were senior citizens, who allowed their son and daughter- in-law to reside in their home considering their immediate needs after the marriage. Following the matrimonial dispute between the son and daughter-in-law, the daughter-in-law started harassing the petitioners and filed criminal cases against the petitioners, apart from matrimonial proceedings against her husband. However, after she started frivolous litigations against them, the petitioners approached the Tribunal seeking eviction from their house. The Tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act allowed the petitioners’ application directing the son and daughter-in-law to vacate their house within a period of 30 days.
The order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the daughter-in-law and an appeal was filed, where it was alleged that she had the right to reside in the said property mainly because of pendency of matrimonial proceedings under the Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the ‘DV Act’) against the son and criminal proceedings under the Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, observing that the reliefs claimed by the petitioners herein could not be granted since they were in the nature of the civil dispute and the petitioners were entitled to initiate appropriate civil proceedings. Consequently, the order passed by the Tribunal directing the son and daughter-in-law to vacate the petitioners’ house was quashed and therefore the petitioners were constrained to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal by way of the instant petition.
The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the Appellate Tribunal adopted a perverse approach defeating the object and purpose of the Senior Citizens Act which ensured grant of protection to the rights of the senior citizens. He contended that the petitioners were the absolute owners of the Bungalow i.e. suit property, for which they had obtained a loan and were repaying it, but were now deprived from enjoying their own property and therefore, they were compelled to approach the Tribunal under Section 5 read with Section 20 of the Act. It was submitted that the Appellate Authority grossly erred in passing the impugned order which was evidently arbitrary and contrary to the spirit behind the Senior Citizens Act and that the Appellate Tribunal had misdirected itself in considering the dispute as purely civil dispute and the rejection of the petitioners’ application for eviction frustrated the protection granted to senior citizens. He further contended that in response to the notice for final disposal, nobody appeared on behalf of the son and daughter-in-law. Also, they had failed to comply with this Court’s order and did not deposit an amount of Rs 20,000 every month.
The counsel for the respondents argued that the Appellate Tribunal had in no way disturbed the rights of the petitioners to approach the civil court for seeking eviction and no fault was found with the impugned order. It was further submitted that on plain reading of Section 5 of the Senior Citizens Act, which dealt with provision to grant maintenance to senior citizens, the Tribunal had rightly refused claim for eviction.
Analysis vis-a-vis senior citizens’ rights and Decision:
The Court clarified that the petitioners were owner of the Bungalow i.e. suit property, which was purchased by them, and it was, therefore, their self-acquired property. The Court further noted that there was no document on record that established any kind of ownership right of the son and daughter-in-law in the suit property and given that they were occupying a part of the property, the petitioners were forced to initiate proceedings for eviction.
The Court examined that there was nothing on record in the nature of any order or decree directing grant of maintenance or right of residence in favour of the daughter-in-law nor there was any specific order under the provisions of the DV Act to support the daughter-in-law’s claim for residence in the suit property of the petitioners. The Court further noted that the petitioners had filed on record a copy of judgment by which the petitioners and their son were acquitted from the criminal case, which remained undisputed by any of the parties.
The Court observed that the daughter-in-law had purchased a house property by way of a registered sale deed during the pendency of the present petition, and despite having her own independent house property, she has been also occupying a portion of the suit property that belonged to the petitioners and no counter-affidavit had been filed for the assertions made. The Court inferred that merely because they were allowed by the petitioners to reside in their house, the same could not be construed to have conferred any right in favour of the daughter-in-law, particularly when her relations with the son had turned hostile. The Court, therefore, pointed out that she could not be permitted to defeat the rights of the petitioners which are independently protected under the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act.
The Court noted that the Appellate Authority had failed to consider the legal position with respect to the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act which ensured protection to the rights of the senior citizens. The Court further opined that the Appellate Tribunal’s inference that the right to seek eviction was merely a civil right and the petitioners should approach the Civil Court was erroneous, thereby defeating the purpose of the provisions under Sections 4, 5 read with Section 22 of the Senior Citizens Act.
The Court relied on Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, (2025) 2 SCC 787, and held that the Senior Citizens Act was a piece of beneficial legislation which aimed at securing the rights of senior citizens, in view of the challenges faced by them. The Court further observed that the Senior Citizens Act directed to provide mechanism for granting maintenance and gave protection to the life and property of the senior citizens.
The Court opined that the Appellate Tribunal had ignored Bombay High Court’s interpretation of Sections 4 and 5 of the Senior Citizens Act in Dattatrey Shivaji Mane (supra), thereby displaying insensitivity. The High Court in Dattatrey Shivaji (supra) had held that Section 4 cannot be read in isolation but has to be read with section 23 and also sections 2(b), 2(d) and 2(f) of the Senior Citizens Act. Therefore, senior citizen cannot be restrained from recovering exclusive possession of their property and any claim for eviction would be maintainable under Section 4.
TheCourt further found that the Appellate Tribunal had adopted an unduly hyper-technical approach, thereby defeating the very object and purpose of the special statute and displayed an indifferent attitude towards the issues raised by the senior citizens.
The Court took note of the non-compliance of the order passed on 21-12-2022, regarding respondents’ failure to deposit Rs 20,000 monthly. The Court further condemned the conduct of the daughter-in-law for the continuous occupation of the petitioners’ home during the pendency of the petition and, therefore, held her liable for arrears and costs.
The Court, thus, quashed the Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 7-8-2020, restored the Tribunal’s eviction order dated 18-2-2019 and directed the son and daughter-in-law to vacate the house property of the petitioners within a period of 30 days from the date of the judgment.
[Chandiram Anandram Hemnani v. Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal, Writ Petition No. 7794 of 2020, decided on 18-6-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: N.S. Jaju h/f P.P. Patni
For the Respondents 1 and 2: M.L. Sangit
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Excellent for the senior citizens