Bombay HC Quashes Son’s Eviction, Elderly Father Must Prove Financial Inability To Seek Eviction

The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, or popularly known as the Senior Citizen Act, secures the elderly for a life of dignity. The Act also provides the elderly with eviction rights against family members from their property. Recently, the Bombay High Court passed a ruling clarifying that the right cannot be invoked when senior citizens are able to maintain themselves. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan emphasised that the Act is intended to protect the elderly; it should not be used as a tool for property disputes. The court quashed the Maintenance Tribunal’s eviction order against two sons whose elderly father is financially independent and doesn’t seek maintenance from his sons, but wanted their eviction.

The court pointed out that the Maintenance Tribunals should exercise summary jurisdiction only when the foundational facts are strictly met.

In this case, Krishna Ganpat Gamre (father), a retired municipal employee, filed a petition for eviction of his sons from his property in Liberty Garden, Malad. The father currently lives with his second wife in a separate residence and earns a taxable income of around Rs 40,000 per month. Notably, his sons are from his late first wife.

While the Maintenance Tribunal originally passed the order for his sons’ eviction from the property in Malad, where they are residing, it simultaneously found that the father was not eligible for financial maintenance because he is receiving a stable pension income. On the other hand, the sons filed a writ petition challenging the eviction order. They argued that the tribunal has no authority to evict them once it has determined that the father earns a stable pension income.

The counsel of the sons argued that the inability to maintain oneself is a foundational fact to make the Act’s provisions applicable. They pointed out that the father’s income is much more than the statutory maintenance cap of Rs 10,000 per month. Thus, the Act is inapplicable in this case.

The father’s counsel, on the other side, argued that the Act should be interpreted broadly to include emotional maintenance. They argued that the father is the owner of the Malad property and is entitled to use the property or to be maintained by the earnings from it. They alleged that the sons are exploiting the property while he struggles with the rent and water problem in the house he lives in.

The court observed that Section 4 of the Act, which is about maintenance of parents and senior citizens, establishes an entitlement to eviction only for those elderly who are unable to maintain themselves from their own earnings or property. The Court noted that the Maintenance Tribunal missed this requirement while passing the eviction order, while noticing that the father didn’t need financial support. The bench noted that the objective of exercising eviction rights is to provide a senior citizen relief from the domestic disturbance due to the presence of relatives in the shared living space. The Court noted that the father has already been living separately. Also, he (father) could not provide evidence of his financial needs or expenses.

Considering all the facts, the Court set aside the eviction order. It clarified that while the father has remedies available to claim rights on his property, he has to fulfil the legal criteria as per the Act. However, the Court granted liberty to the father to file a fresh application if he can provide substantial evidence in his support to be covered under the scope of Section 4 of the Act.