Back
Family Home at Stake: Calcutta HC Curbs Tribunal's Power to Evict Sons Under Senior Citizens Act
In a significant ruling on the limits of summary tribunals, the has held that under the , cannot order the eviction of children from family property. Justice Krishna Rao, presiding over two linked writ petitions—WPA No. 10504 of 2025 filed by mother Pushpa Sharma and WPA No. 16316 of 2025 by son Shyam Sundar Sharma—modified the tribunal's orders, striking down the eviction directive while preserving the maintenance payments.
This decision underscores the Act's focus on financial support for elderly parents, not property disputes, offering clarity amid rising family conflicts over ancestral homes.
From Harmony to Heartbreak: The Property Dispute Unfolds
The three-storied building at Rangamati, Paschim Medinipur, built by late Rameshwar Dayal Sharma, once housed the entire family. After his death in , tensions erupted. Widow Pushpa Sharma alleged her sons, Shyam Sundar Sharma (@ Bablu) and Gajanand Sharma, ousted her, denying maintenance and medical aid despite her chronic diabetes and kidney issues. Forced to seek refuge at her brother's home in Cuttack, she approached the , under , seeking ₹30,000 monthly maintenance and expense reimbursements.
On , the SDO ordered the sons to vacate within three months, with interim maintenance of ₹10,000 from Gajanand and ₹15,000 from Shyam Sundar. A follow-up order on , demanded compliance within 30 days. Pushpa then filed for enforcement via writ, while Shyam challenged the eviction, arguing statutory overreach.
Sons Strike Back: 'Eviction Exceeds Tribunal's Reach'
Shyam Sundar, represented by , contended the writ by his mother was premature, as provides enforcement remedies before the tribunal itself. He affirmed willingness to care for her, claiming regular payments and medical support, and prior cohabitation until .
Crucially, he argued Sections 4 and 5 limit tribunals to maintenance (capped at ₹10,000/month per ), not eviction. Invoking , he asserted his birthright in the property. Precedents like Joya Roy (WPA 651/2024) and Swati Das (2022 SCC OnLine Cal 4552) were cited, deeming such orders abusive and eviction suits proper civil remedies.
Pushpa's counsel, , countered with safety fears, seeking enhanced maintenance to ₹50,000 and reliance on Samtola Devi (2025 SCC OnLine SC 669) for conditional eviction on non-payment.
Peeling Back the Act: No Room for Eviction in Maintenance Machinery
Justice Rao dissected the 2007 Act's scheme, rooted in providing "simple, inexpensive, and speedy" relief per its Statement of Objects. Chapter II (Sections 4-5) casts maintenance duties on children but empowers tribunals solely for monthly allowances, sans eviction provisions.
"The Act of 2007 provides for an adjudication of such an application by the Tribunal by holding
for determining the amount of the maintenance. Sections 4 and 5 cannot be used by the senior citizen to recover property,"
the court observed, modifying the SDO's orders by deleting the vacate directive. Note: The ₹15,000 award exceeded the ₹10,000 cap but went unchallenged.
(voiding transfers) was inapplicable absent post-Act gifting with failed conditions. The mother's enforcement writ was dismissed, directing recourse if payments falter.
Writs Welcome: Open to Aggrieved Children
Addressing maintainability, the court affirmed children can challenge tribunal orders via writs, as tribunals exercise (contra civil courts). Citing Mamata Sarki (MAT 61/2019), Kirti v. Renu Anand (2024 SCC OnLine Del 2089), and Radhey Shyam ((2015) 5 SCC 423), it distinguished supervisory , favoring for jurisdictional errors.
Precedents like T.C. Basappa (AIR 1954 SC 440) reinforced against excess jurisdiction, without appellate reweighing.
Key Observations from the Bench
"Neither there is any direct or indirect reference of eviction nor do these provisions contemplate any such order to be passed by the Tribunal."
"The Tribunal cannot pass an order of eviction on an application filed by the senior citizen under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 2007."
"The orders passed by tribunals as well as the judicial acts by administrative bodies or authorities or persons exercisingare all amenable to challenge underof the Constitution."
These extracts, drawn from Justice Rao's judgment, crystallize the boundaries.
A Balanced Verdict: Maintenance Stays, Eviction Falls
WPA 10504 (mother's) was dismissed, freeing her to invoke for payment lapses. WPA 16316 (son's) was partly allowed, vacating eviction sans prejudice to civil suits.
This ruling, echoing reports of tribunals as non-substitutes for civil courts, protects property while safeguarding senior maintenance. Future disputes may pivot to regular courts for possession, streamlining the Act for its true purpose: dignified elderly support amid familial strife.
