Maintenance Tribunal Can Order Eviction Of Child Or Relative To Protect Senior Citizen’s Residence: Bombay High Court

The Bench further noted that the definition of “maintenance” under Section 2(b) of the Act is broad and includes provision for food, clothing, residence and medical treatment. The statutory obligation of children extends to ensuring that a senior citizen is able to live a normal, safe and dignified life, which necessarily includes the right to reside in her own home, it held.

The Single Judge Bench dismissed the writ petition filed by a son challenging orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal directing him to vacate a flat belonging to his 73-year-old mother.

Justice N. J. Jamadar observed, “Indeed, the said measure falls under the Chapter of Protection of life and property of senior citizen. However, if the provisions of the Act, are read as a whole, chapter by chapter, section by section; and word by word; which is the standard rule of interpretation (Reserve Bank of India V/s. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and Ors.), then if the Tribunal is empowered to declare a transfer, which has already been effected by instruments inter vivos void, a fortiori, the Tribunal in exercise of its power to enforce the right of maintenance of the senior citizen and the corresponding obligation of the child / relative, would have the authority to order eviction of the child / relative who has unlawfully dispossessed the senior citizen or created an atmosphere which forces the senior citizen to take shelter elsewhere than her own home”.

“The matter can be looked at from the two other perspectives, especially where the allegation is that the senior citizen has been driven out of her own home/property. First, under the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, 2007, the Tribunal is conferred with the authority to declare a transfer, made by the senior citizen in favour of the transferee, void if the transferee refuses or fails to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor, post transfer. In a sense, the power is drastic in nature. The Tribunal is empowered to declare a registered instrument inter vivos void, and, resultantly, put the transferor – senior citizen in possession of the property for failure of the condition subsequent; express or implied”, the Bench further noted.

Advocate S S Redekar appeared for the petitioner and S R Crasto, AGP appeared for the respondent.

In the matter, the mother had alleged that her son broke open the lock of her flat and forcibly occupied it shortly after the property was handed over to her as permanent alternate accommodation following redevelopment. Resultantly, the mother was compelled to live in a rented premises.

However, the petitioner-son had contended that the eviction application filed before the Maintenance Tribunal was not maintainable since the mother had not claimed monetary maintenance under the Act.

The Court noted that although the Act does not explicitly provide for eviction proceedings, the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. Civil Appeal/3822/2020 dt. 15/12/2020 had clarified that eviction may be ordered if it is necessary to ensure the protection and maintenance of senior citizens.

Furthermore, the High Court observed that while the statute does not specifically prescribe eviction proceedings, such relief can still be granted where it becomes necessary to enforce the rights of senior citizens.

The Bench noted that if such drastic powers exist to restore property to a senior citizen, the tribunal would also have the authority to direct eviction of a child or relative who unlawfully dispossesses the senior citizen from her own property.

The Court also highlighted that the Act allows maintenance of up to ₹10,000 per month, which in metropolitan cities like Mumbai would hardly be sufficient for securing accommodation. In such circumstances, restoring possession of the senior citizen’s own property may be necessary to ensure meaningful protection.

Therefore, holding that the petitioner had forcibly entered the flat and deprived his mother of her residence, the Court upheld the eviction order and dismissed the writ petition. However, it granted the petitioner three weeks’ time to vacate the premises, subject to filing an undertaking not to create third-party rights.

Cause Title: Bholenath Mevalal Nishad v. Shyamdulari Mevalal Nishad & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:11142]

Appearances:

Petitioner: S. S. Redekar, Advocate.

Respondents: S. R. Crasto, AGP, Mohan Pillai, Advocate.

Click here to read/download the Judgment