Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J. Jamadar, J.
Bholenath Mevalal Nishad - Petitioner
Versus
Shyamdulari Mevalal Nishad - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 16375 of 2025
Decided On : 05-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition dismissed; eviction order upheld. (Para 1 , 5 , 6 , 51) |
| 2. senior citizen mother dispossessed by son's trespass into her flat. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. eviction without maintenance claim held not maintainable. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. residence included in maintenance; act protects senior's property. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. maintenance encompasses residence for senior's normal life. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. beneficial act demands purposive liberal interpretation. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. jitendra case distinguished due to absence of harassment. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 39 , 40) |
| 8. eviction enforces obligation for senior's peaceful residence. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 9. tribunal empowered for property protection beyond monetary aid. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 10. forcible dispossession breaches maintenance duty; eviction justified. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
JUDGMENT :
N. J. JAMADAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to a judgment and order dated 30th October, 2025 passed by the Appellate Tribunal whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner against an order of eviction passed by the Maintenance Tribunal under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (‘the Senior Citizens Act, 2007’), came to be dismissed by affirming the said order.
3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts necessary for the determination of this petition can be summarized as under:-
3.1 The Respondent No. 1 is the mother of the petitioner. She is a senior citizen. The Respondent No. 1 claims to be the holder of Flat No. 403, A-wing, the Baya Park Central C.H.S. Ltd. (‘the subject flat’).
3.2 The Respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Maintenance Tribunal asserting inter alia that, the petitioner had been residing separately from the Respondent No. 1 since the year 2013. The petitioner had instituted a suit against his brother Mr. Shankar Nishad – younger son of Respondent No. 1. However, the said suit came to be disposed by an order dated 07th April 2017 passed by the City Civil Court. The petitioner is aggressive and quarrelsome in nature. The Respondent No. 1 had thus been residing alongwith her younger son at Badlapur. 3.3 On 05th November, 2023, the Respondent No. 1 alleged the petitioner broke open the lock of the subject flat and trespassed into the subject flat. The Respondent No. 1 approached the Police. As the FIR was not immediately registered, the Respondent No. 1 was constrained to file a private complaint. The Respondent No. 1 thus filed the application before the Maintenance Tribunal seeking protection from the petitioner and an order to direct the petitioner to vacate the subject flat.
3.4 The petitioner resisted the application. The petitioner contended that, the petitioner was permitted to occupy the subject flat in lieu of the Respondent No. 1 collecting rent to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- to 30,000/- per month, of the shop premises situated at Lower Parel, Mumbai. Since the Respondent No. 1 was not claiming any maintenance, the application for eviction of the petitioner was not maintainable before the Maintenance Tribunal.
3.4 It was denied that, the petitioner had subjected the Respondent No. 1 to harassment and torture. The petitioner had also expressed willingness to maintain the Respondent no. 1 out of whatever meager income the petitioner was earning.
3.5 After appraisal of the rival contentions and the material on record, by an order dated 04th March, 2025, the Maintenance Tribunal was persuaded to allow the application and direct the petitioner to vacate and deliver the possession of the subject flat to Respondent No. 1. The Maintenance Tribunal was of the view that, in her old age the Respondent No. 1 had a right to live a normal
Tribunal under Senior Citizens Act may order child's eviction from parent's property sans monetary maintenance claim if essential for senior citizen's residence and normal life, particularly after fo....
Tribunals under Senior Citizens Act can order children's eviction from parent's property without monetary maintenance claim, as 'maintenance' includes residence essential for normal life, per purposi....
The Senior Citizens Act empowers the Tribunal to issue eviction orders to protect the rights and welfare of senior citizens, emphasizing the obligation of children to maintain their parents, includin....
An eviction order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act requires a maintenance claim by the senior citizen; without such a claim, the eviction is not maintainable.
Eviction can be an incident of the enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 protects the rights of senior citizens to maintain possession of their property independent of their children's claims.
Senior citizen, cannot seek eviction from separate residence of son in a building owned by him, under Senior Citizens Act – Son also cannot claim a right to residence in a building exclusively owned ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
