Mumbai, Dec 08: In a ruling with significant implications for property disputes within families, the Bombay High Court on Monday quashed orders that mandated the eviction of an unemployed 53-year-old son by his wealthy, retired IAS officer father.
Maintenance Relief Not Sought, Hence Eviction Unjustified
The court held that the summary remedy of eviction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, cannot be invoked merely to settle a property dispute when the senior citizen makes no claim whatsoever for maintenance from the child.
Case Linked to Bungalow at Four Bungalows, Andheri
The case centered on a bungalow in Four Bungalows, Andheri West, where the son has resided for years.
Son Challenges Tribunal Orders in HC
A bench of Justices Riyaz Chagla and Farhan Dubash passed the judgment while hearing a petition filed by the son challenging the October order of the Additional District Collector (Appellate Tribunal) by which it upheld the eviction order passed by the Parents and Citizens Maintenance Tribunal.
Father Owns Multiple Properties, Lives in Juhu Flat
In August, the tribunal directed the son to hand over peaceful possession to his 75-year-old father, a retired IAS officer, who owns multiple properties and lives in a luxury flat on Juhu–Versova Link Road. The father had sought his eviction citing “mental pressure” and a need for the ground floor of the bungalow due to his medical condition.
Court Questions Eviction Without Maintenance Claim
The HC pondered whether eviction could be ordered when maintenance relief was explicitly not sought by the senior citizen.
Attempt for Settlement Failed
Before hearing the arguments, the judges met the father and son in chambers to explore an amicable solution. Although the son agreed to allow his father to use the ground floor while he remained on the first floor, “the senior citizen was not agreeable to the same”, the court recorded.
Father Financially Independent, No Harassment Alleged
The HC noted that the father made no claim for maintenance — a fact the authorities failed to address.
It noted that the father “is financially well-to-do and owns several other immovable properties”, and that the eviction order itself recorded the absence of any maintenance claim.
2013 Declaration Allowing Son to Stay Considered Key
The court underscored several admitted facts: the senior citizen has never resided in the bungalow, continues to stay in a 1600 sq ft Juhu flat with his wife (the son’s stepmother), does not need financial support, and owns multiple other residential and commercial properties.
It also took on record a 2013 written declaration by the father permitting the petitioner and his wife to “reside in the subject premises and conduct their business therefrom, for as long as they want and without paying any monies”.
HC Says Eviction a Reaction to Son’s Partition Suit
The bench found that the eviction plea appeared to be a “counter-blast” to the son’s 2019 partition suit seeking division of properties held by the father as Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). “The provisions of the Act cannot be employed as a means to secure the respondent’s summary eviction while proprietary rights remain sub judice,” the court cautioned.
No Allegation of Cruelty or Mistreatment Against Son
Crucially, the court noted the absence of any allegations of harassment or cruelty in the father’s application, terming his claim that it would be “convenient” for him to shift to the bungalow as “a vague assertion… bereft of particulars.”
Act Meant for Protection, Not Misuse: HC
In a detailed 26-page order, the bench stated unequivocally: “The Act is a beneficial statute intended to safeguard the vulnerable (senior citizen), but it cannot be (mis)used by the senior citizen as a tool for summary eviction without the fulfilment of statutory requirements.”
Also Watch:
Convenience Argument Not Supported by Facts, Says HC
The court observed that since the father had never lived in the bungalow, his assertion that it would be “convenient” to move there from his 1600 sq ft four-bedroom flat was vague and lacked justification.
Eviction and Appellate Orders Set Aside
Finding that the orders were “clearly contrary to the scheme of the Act,” the High Court set aside both the eviction order and the appellate order.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
