In the High Court At Calcutta

CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

CO/26/2024

SIB CHARAN ROY

VS

NILAKSHA ROY AND ANR

WITH

CO/110/2023

NILAKSHA ROY

VS

SIB CHARAN ROY AND ANR

For the Petitioner in

CO/26/2024

And OP in CO/110/2023 :Mr. Arnab Sengupta, Advocate

Mr. Deborshi Dhar, Advocate Ms. Prerna Khaitan, Advocate

For the Petitioner

CO/110/2023

And OP in CO/26/2024 :Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh, Advocate

Mr. Supriya Singh, Advocate

Mr. Ved Rai, Advocate

Mr. Mayank Bhandari, Advocate

Mr. Vivek Saha, Advocate

Heard & Judgment on: November 27, 2025

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. Two revisional applications are taken up for analogous hearing as

they involve the same parties.

2. A senior citizen, filed CO 26 of 2024 assailing an order dated September 12, 2023 passed in Appeal Petition No. 04 of 2023 of the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the West Bengal Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The son of the senior citizen filed CO 110 of 2023 directed against the order dated August 14, 2023 passed by the Tribunal purporting to exercise jurisdiction under the Act of 2007.

3. The senior citizen left his son and his wife since deceased to live separately. The senior citizen was living separately for over 23 years at a different place. Wife of the senior citizen and the son were living together at the immovable property which is the subject matter of the proceeding under the Act of 2007. The concerned immovable property belonged to the grandfather of the senior citizen. House thereon was constructed by the senior citizen and his wife, now deceased, jointly. Senior citizen granted lease of the immovable property to his son. Senior citizen is retired and is enjoying pensionery benefits. Senior citizen possesses a residence of his own.

4. Son is presently working. He is not residing on the subject property. He visits the subject property apparently when his employment permits him to do so.

5. Disputes and differences arose between the senior citizen and his son as to the manner and method of disposal of the immovable property concerned.

6. It transpires that, the senior citizen is inclined to sell the immovable property. Son does not want it to be sold and if senior citizen is willing to sell the house to the son he is willing to purchase the said house at price to be fixed by them mutually. Senior citizen refused to do so.

7. Senior citizen thereafter approached the maintenance Tribunal under the Act of 2007.

8. The first issue is whether the maintenance Tribunal can assume jurisdiction such a scenario.

9. Authorities are cited on behalf of the senior citizen to the effect that a maintenance Tribunal can direct eviction.

10. Authorities cited on behalf of the senior citizen namely, Shweta Shetty & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2021 SCC Online Bom 4575], Smt. Mamata Sarki & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. [AIR 2020 Calcutta 166] and Naresh Kumar And Anr. vs. The Appellate Tribunal Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 & Ors. [2024(1) PLR 164] held that, a maintenance Tribunal possesses jurisdiction to direct eviction.

11. Factual matrix in all those three authorities are completely different from that obtaining in the present case. In all the three authorities, the senior citizen required the immovable property concerned for his residence. The children of senior citizens involved therein were obstructing the peaceful user and enjoyment of such immovable property by the senior citizens.

12. In the facts of the present case, the senior citizen does not require the immovable property concerned for his residence. Senior citizen is seeking to sell it to some other person.

13. Every dispute between the senior citizen and a son cannot come within the scope and ambit of a Tribunal established under the Act of 2007.

14. The Act of 2007 defines a “maintenance” under Section 2(b) and “welfare” in Section 2(k) which are as follows-

2(b)- “maintenan