The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is designed to safeguard elderly and vulnerable parents or senior citizens by ensuring their maintenance and welfare. However, the Bombay High Court (BHC) has recently held that this Act cannot be misused for obtaining summary eviction of a child merely on the basis of property ownership by a senior citizen, when there is no claim for maintenance or evidence of neglect or hardship.
In the case before the Court, a 75-year-old father (a retired civil servant) filed an application under the Act seeking eviction of his 53-year-old son from a bungalow owned by him, although the father himself was residing in a separate flat. The Tribunal under the Act had ordered eviction, and the Appellate Tribunal upheld the same. The father claimed the eviction was needed for his convenience, given his age-related ailments, including leg pain and difficulty in walking, arguing that it would be easier for him to stay on the ground floor of the bungalow.
On appeal, a Division Bench of the BHC — Justices Riyaz Chagla and Farhan Dubash — quashed both the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal orders. The Court noted that the father had never lived in the bungalow he sought to repossess, and had a separate, well-equipped residence. Moreover, he had not filed any maintenance claim under the Act — a fundamental requirement under Sections 4 and 5 of the statute. There was no allegation of harassment, neglect, or failure by the son to provide maintenance.
The Court observed that the Act’s mechanism for relief is “summary” but is structured specifically for maintenance claims by senior citizens who are unable to sustain themselves — not for settling family property disputes or effectuating an eviction solely due to ownership. In this case, the father’s request was essentially a property dispute disguised as a maintenance application. The Court found that the lower authorities had failed to apply their minds to the statutory conditions, and had ignored crucial facts such as the father’s financial position, ownership of multiple properties, and long-standing written permission granted to the son and his wife to reside in the bungalow rent-free.
The Court held that eviction under the Act is permissible only when the statutory prerequisites are satisfied — such as a claim that the senior citizen is unable to maintain himself, or that there is neglect or lack of care. Ownership alone does not justify eviction, and resorting to eviction without maintenance need or neglect undermines the purpose of the Act.
As a result of these findings, the High Court set aside the eviction orders passed by the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, restoring the son’s right to residence. The judgment underscores that the Provisions of the Senior Citizens Act must be invoked in accordance with their true object — protection of vulnerable seniors — and not as a shortcut to resolve inter-generational property or possession conflicts.
This ruling clarifies that while the Act provides a beneficial remedy for genuine maintenance needs, it cannot be expanded beyond its legislative intent to effect summary eviction in all circumstances.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.