The High Court of Karnataka delivered a ruling affirming that under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 — commonly the Senior Citizens Act — a Tribunal, in this instance acting through an Assistant Commissioner, can issue an eviction order when the circumstances warrant protection of an elderly person’s rights. The Court emphasized that this power is “extraordinary” and should only be invoked where the protection, dignity, and welfare of a senior citizen demand it. In the case before it, a mother-in-law had filed a petition under the Act, requesting that her daughter-in-law — the petitioner — be evicted from a house so that the mother-in-law could regain possession. The Assistant Commissioner of Ballari, serving as the Tribunal, directed the daughter-in-law to vacate the property and hand over vacant possession to her mother-in-law. The petitioner challenged this order on the grounds that the Act did not confer on the Assistant Commissioner the authority to order eviction.
In examining the case, the Court noted that after the death of the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner and her children had taken possession of the main house, while the senior citizen (her mother-in-law) and her husband were relegated to living in an outhouse. The petitioner and her children allegedly continued to occupy the main residence, denied the senior citizens access, and did not allow them to live with dignity in their own home. The fact that after her husband’s demise the petitioner had shifted residence to Andhra Pradesh further undermined her claim to retain the house. Considering these facts, the Assistant Commissioner had passed the eviction order in response to the mother-in-law’s plea.
The High Court, presided over by M Nagaprasanna, dismissed the petition filed by the daughter-in-law. The Court observed that though Section 23 of the Act — which deals with transfers of property by a senior citizen — does not explicitly mention eviction powers, when interpreted in light of the object and purpose of the Act, it becomes permissible in compelling circumstances. The Court referred to earlier judgments that had recognized this power as an extraordinary one to be invoked only when the protection and welfare of an elderly person so require. It stated that eviction cannot be treated as a routine relief or ordered as a matter of course; rather, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the senior citizen’s right to dignity, welfare and access to her own home is being violated.
Applying these principles, the Court found the facts of the present case clearly met that threshold. The senior citizen’s forced stay in an outhouse, deprived of her home’s main premises and dignity of access, constituted compelling circumstances. Under these conditions, the eviction order was justified. The Court found “no perversity or infirmity” in the Assistant Commissioner’s order and upheld it.
The Court therefore confirmed that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act — acting through the Assistant Commissioner — is indeed empowered to issue eviction orders in extraordinary situations where a senior citizen’s welfare and dignity demand protection, and such power was validly exercised on the facts of this case.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.