Jurisdiction Of Maintenance Tribunal Can't Be Invoked By One Senior Citizen Against Another: Bombay High Court
The Court held that the jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal cannot be invoked for recovering possession of property, as such disputes must be adjudicated by a civil court.
The Bombay High Court held that the jurisdiction of the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizen Tribunal (Tribunal) cannot be invoked under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the Act), for recovering possession of premises. The Court observed that the case was essentially a suit for possession, which falls under the jurisdiction of a Civil Court and should not have been entertained by the Tribunal
A Single Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed, “Jurisdiction of Maintenance Tribunal cannot be invoked by one senior citizen to recover possession of premises from another senior citizen. Petitioner No.1 is admittedly not supposed to maintain Respondent No.2. Therefore jurisdiction of the Tribunal could not have been invoked to seek recovery of possession of first floor premises from the Petitioners.”
The Court added, “In my view therefore, the present case involves gross abuse of jurisdiction of the Tribunal which is utilized for the purpose of securing possession of first floor premises from one senior citizen by another senior citizen.”
The Petitioners were represented by Advocate Santosh S. Jagtap, while Additional Government Pleader appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioners are all senior citizens. Respondent No. 2, the sister of Petitioner No.1, resides on the ground floor of a slum property, and initiated proceedings before the Tribunal under the Act against the Petitioners, seeking their eviction from the first floor, alleging that they have unlawfully encroached upon the premises.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal directing the Petitioners to hand over possession of the premises to their sister, the Petitioners approached the High Court challenging the said order.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court observed that the case was essentially a suit for the recovery of the first-floor premises, which could not be pursued under the provisions of the Act and, therefore, should not have been entertained and decided by the Tribunal. The Bench further noted that the Petitioner being the sister of Respondent No.2 had no duty to maintain her.
The Court stated, “This clearly appears to be proceedings for recovery of possession of first floor premises. which in my view cannot be filed by invoking the provisions of the Act. The proceedings appear to my mind in the nature of suit for recovery of possession of first floor premises, which could not have been entertained and decided by the Tribunal.”
The Bench stated that in the summary inquiry conducted by the Tribunal, complex questions regarding an occupier's right to possess the first-floor premises cannot be adjudicated. Such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
“In Summary Inquiry conducted by the Tribunal, complicated questions about right of an occupier to possess first floor premises cannot be adjudicated. Such adjudication can be undertaken only before a Civil Court. In my view therefore, the present case involves gross abuse of jurisdiction of the Tribunal which is utilized for the purpose of securing possession of first floor premises from one senior citizen by another senior citizen,” the Court added.
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, with liberty to the sister to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of the premises.
Cause Title: Vinal Dagadu Kate & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation No. 2025:BHC-AS:11709)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Santosh S. Jagtap, Amar K. Shilwant
Respondents: Additional Government Pleader S.D. Rayrikar, Advocate Mahesh H. Chandanshiv
