Eviction Under Senior Citizens Act Unsustainable When Senior Citizen Is Financially Secure, No Neglect Is Shown: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has held that an eviction order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be passed in the absence of a claim for maintenance by the senior citizen and that the summary machinery of the Act cannot be invoked solely to secure eviction where the statutory conditions under Sections 4 and 5 are not satisfied.

The Court observed that the Act is a beneficial legislation intended to protect vulnerable senior citizens but cannot be used as a tool to obtain possession of property when no relief of maintenance is sought and no case of neglect or ill treatment is made out.

A Division Bench of Justices R I Chagla and Farhan P Dubash set aside both the August 26, 2025 eviction order passed by the Parents and Citizens Maintenance Tribunal and the October 1, 2025 appellate order affirming it, holding them to be contrary to the statutory scheme and unsupported by a finding that the senior citizen was unable to maintain himself or was neglected by his son, the petitioner.

The Court held that since the senior citizen had never made any claim for maintenance, never resided in the premises in question and did not establish any need based requirement to invoke the Act, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order eviction and the appellate authority erred in affirming such an order without examining maintainability.

The Court noted that the question raised before it was short but significant: whether an eviction order under the Act could be passed even when the senior citizen had made no claim towards maintenance.

It found that both authorities below overlooked the foundational statutory requirement that an application under Section 5 flows from a claim under Section 4 by a senior citizen unable to maintain himself from his own income or property. At the outset, the Bench observed that the senior citizen was financially well off, owned several residential and commercial properties, lived separately in a 1600 sq. ft. apartment with his wife, and conceded that he did not seek any monetary maintenance from the petitioner.

The Tribunal had expressly recorded that no claim for maintenance was made yet proceeded to order eviction on the ground that it would be “convenient” for the senior citizen to stay on the ground floor of the property despite him never having resided there.

The High Court held that such reasoning was insufficient and vague and failed to address why the senior citizen wished to leave his own fully equipped residence to shift into a premises where mobility would in fact be more challenging considering his age related ailments.

It also found that no allegation of harassment or cruelty was made against the petitioner and that the case appeared driven primarily by the senior citizen’s desire to counter the petitioner’s 2019 partition suit concerning multiple properties, including the premises at issue.

The Court then turned to the precedents relied upon and examined the broader jurisprudence governing eviction under the Act. It referred to the Top Court’s decision in S Vanitha v Deputy Commissioner which held that eviction may be ordered if necessary to secure maintenance and protection of the senior citizen, making it clear that such power is incidental to enforcement of maintenance rights and not an independent remedy.

It also relied on Ranjana Rajkumar Makharia v Mayadevi Makharia, where it was held that Sections 4 and 5 cannot be deployed to recover property except as a measure of maintenance.

Further, in Ritika Prashant Jasani v Anjana Jasani, the Court held that eviction cannot be ordered without a finding of neglect under Section 9 and without determining whether the property is exclusively owned by the senior citizen or has an ancestral or shared character affecting the child’s independent rights of residence.

The High Court also referred to Nitin Rajendra Gupta v Collector, where it cautioned that the Act cannot be used to settle property disputes.

The Bench concluded that these authorities reinforce that eviction is not a standalone remedy but an incident of a maintainable claim under the Act, and that the Tribunal must examine whether the statutory preconditions exist, whether the senior citizen is unable to maintain himself, whether neglect is established and whether competing proprietary claims require adjudication before civil courts.

On the arguments advanced, the petitioner, appearing in person, reiterated that the senior citizen had never lived in the premises, owned several properties, and was financially independent. He relied on a 2013 written declaration in which the senior citizen expressly permitted him and his wife to reside and conduct business from the premises for as long as they wished without payment. He also pointed to letters from the senior citizen to authorities showing that it was in fact he who bore all expenses for the premises, contrary to the allegations in the application.

He further argued that the eviction order breached an undertaking recorded in the partition suit in 2019, where the senior citizen had agreed not to deal with or part with possession of any of the properties pending adjudication.

Counsel for the senior citizen accepted that no maintenance was sought and that the senior citizen had never resided in the premises but argued that ownership entitled him to seek eviction under the Act.

The High Court held that ownership alone does not justify eviction under the Act without compliance with Sections 4 and 5 and without any claim of inability to maintain oneself or any pleading or finding of neglect.

The Court emphasised that the jurisdiction under the Act is summary and meant to provide swift relief to genuinely vulnerable senior citizens but cannot become a mechanism to circumvent civil proceedings or secure possession when no maintenance based claim is made.

It reiterated that the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal failed to apply the correct legal test and overlooked material facts including the petitioner’s existing civil claim, the written permission granted earlier, and the absence of any allegation of neglect or demand for maintenance.

The Court therefore quashed both orders and disposed of the writ petition.

Case Title: Jitendra Gorakh Megh v Additional Collector & Anr.

Date of Judgment: 08.12.2025

Bench: Justices R I Chagla and Farhan P Dubash