Senior Citizens Act Not a Substitute for Civil Eviction Remedies: Bombay HC Quashes Eviction Order

The Bombay High Court has held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary civil eviction proceedings, and that eviction under the Act is permissible only where statutory preconditions are satisfied.

The Court held that before the Tribunal can exercise its powers, it must first be shown that the senior citizen is unable to maintain himself, as this is a foundational requirement.

It further clarified that the Act’s summary procedure cannot be used to settle ordinary family property disputes

Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed Writ Petition No. 5932 of 2024 and quashed the eviction order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and affirmed by the Appellate Authority;

"Every conflict between a senior citizen and his offspring would not attract the jurisdiction of the Act. Whether the factual matrix in a given case brings out the jurisdictional facts necessary for the intervention envisaged in the Act is a question that must necessarily be answered in each case. If the answer to the same in a given case is one where the jurisdictional fact is not made out, it would necessarily follow that the absence of a jurisdictional fact would lead to the remedies under the Act not being available – of course, making it clear that other remedies available in law would, in no manner, be eroded by such finding", the court observed.

The case arose from an eviction order obtained by a senior citizen under the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act against his son in respect of residential premises.

The Tribunal had directed eviction in exercise of its summary powers, and the order was upheld in appeal.

The son challenged the orders before the High Court, contending that the statutory scheme had been misapplied and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction in the absence of proof that the senior citizen was unable to maintain himself.

The High Court undertook a detailed analysis of the statutory scheme of the Act.

The Court emphasised that Section 4 is the foundation of the Act and confers a right to seek maintenance only when a senior citizen is unable to maintain himself from his own earnings or property.

This inability, the Court held, is not a mere formality but a jurisdictional fact, meaning that unless it exists and is established, the Tribunal lacks authority to proceed further.

The Court observed that Sections 5 and 23, which empower the Tribunal to grant relief including eviction in appropriate cases, cannot be read in isolation. Instead, they must be interpreted in harmony with Section 4.

The Bench clarified that the Act was enacted as a social welfare legislation to protect elderly persons from neglect and destitution, not to provide a parallel mechanism for adjudicating property disputes between family members.

Significantly, the Court held that eviction under the Act is not automatic merely because a senior citizen owns the property. The Tribunal must first determine whether the senior citizen is unable to maintain himself and whether the statutory conditions are met. Without such determination, the exercise of summary eviction powers would amount to overreach.

The High Court cautioned that the Senior Citizens Act cannot be converted into a fast-track eviction tool in situations where ordinary civil remedies are available - Where the dispute pertains to title, possession, or civil rights independent of maintenance, the appropriate forum would be a competent civil court.

"A situation where the parties have been in conflict for long and one desires the other to be removed from a property where they do not reside jointly, or worse, where neither resides (the Father alleges that even the Sons do not live there) is not a matter that would fall within the ambit and scope of remedial intervention under the Act", the court further observed.

In the present case, the Court found that there was no clear finding by the Tribunal that the senior citizen was unable to maintain himself; Nor was there material demonstrating that the son had failed in a legal obligation to provide maintenance in the manner contemplated by the statute.

In the absence of such findings, the jurisdictional threshold under Section 4 was not met.

The Court therefore held that the Tribunal’s order suffered from a fundamental legal infirmity and could not be sustained.

Observing that statutory safeguards cannot be bypassed even in welfare legislation, the High Court quashed the eviction order and clarified that the parties would be at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law before the competent forum.

Case Title: Prakash Krishna Gamare & Anr v. Krishna Ganpat Gamre & Anr

Bench: Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan

Date: 09.02.2026