Tribunal Under Senior Citizens Act Can Grant Maintenance But Cannot Order Eviction: Calcutta High Court
The High Court clarified that while statutory tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, can ensure financial support for parents, they lack jurisdiction to direct eviction from property, since the statute contemplates maintenance relief alone.
Justice Krishna Rao, Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court held that tribunals constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are empowered to grant maintenance but cannot order eviction from property, as such relief is not contemplated within the statutory scheme.
The Court was hearing two writ petitions arising from orders of a Sub-Divisional Officer acting under the 2007 Act relating to maintenance and residential occupation of property.
Justice Krishna Rao observed that “a reading of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 2007, it is clear that Tribunal constituted under the Act can only pass an order of maintenance… Neither is there any direct or indirect reference to eviction, nor do these provisions contemplate any such order.”
Background
The dispute concerned a senior citizen mother who sought maintenance and implementation of administrative orders directing her sons to vacate a residential building and pay monthly maintenance.
She claimed ownership of the property and alleged that after her husband’s death, her sons occupied the premises, failed to maintain it, and forced her to reside elsewhere due to threats.
The Sub-Divisional Officer had directed the sons to vacate the property within three months and pay the specified monthly maintenance.
One son challenged the eviction direction, arguing that the Act permits only maintenance orders and not eviction, and that he had a right in the property under personal law principles.
Court’s Observation
The Court first examined the statutory framework of the 2007 Act, noting that its Statement of Objects and Reasons reveals that it was enacted to provide a simple, speedy, and inexpensive remedy for parents and senior citizens to obtain maintenance.
Interpreting Sections 4 and 5, the Court held that these provisions confer a right to claim maintenance and prescribe the procedure for adjudication, but do not authorise recovery of property or eviction.
The Court emphasised that these provisions are designed to ensure dignified living for senior citizens through financial support rather than property restoration.
The Court further observed that Section 9 limits the maximum maintenance allowance prescribed by State rules and that although the administrative authority had directed payment exceeding the statutory cap, the challenge before it was confined to the eviction direction.
On Section 23 of the Act, the Court clarified that eviction-type relief may arise only where statutory conditions relating to conditional transfer of property are satisfied, namely, transfer after commencement of the Act, a condition requiring provision of amenities, and refusal or failure to fulfil that condition.
Since none of these ingredients existed, Section 23 was held inapplicable.
Addressing maintainability, the Court held that orders of tribunals under the Act are amenable to judicial review under Article 226 because such tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies inferior to the High Court.
It reiterated that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be excluded merely because a statutory tribunal exists.
The Court also explained the doctrinal distinction between Articles 226 and 227, noting that writ jurisdiction is original and supervisory jurisdiction corrective, and each may be invoked depending on the relief sought.
“The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, being the quasi-judicial bodies, are inferior to the High Court and, as such, the High Court will have the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunals are not civil courts, and the orders cannot be treated as judicial orders”, the Court concluded.
Conclusion
The High Court modified the impugned orders by setting aside the direction requiring the son to vacate the premises, holding that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order.
The mother’s writ petition seeking enforcement of eviction was dismissed, though she was granted liberty to pursue remedies before the tribunal for enforcement of maintenance if payments were not made.
Cause Title: Pushpa Sharma v. State of West Bengal & Ors.; Shyam Sundar Sharma @ Bablu v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Appearances
Senior Advocate Probal Mukherjee, Advocates Ranajit Chatterjee, Aniruddha Mitra, Prantik Gharai, Romendu Agarwal, Apoorva Choudhury, Sonia Das, Wasim Ahmed, Sk. Md. Masud