Can Elderly Pensioners Demand Eviction Under The Senior Citizens Act? Bombay High Court Says This

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a retired father seeking the eviction of his son (a doctor), and daughter-in-law (a homemaker) from his house in Nagpur. While hearing the petition on September 1, 2026, Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande held that the beneficial legislation cannot be misused as a summary eviction tool by senior citizens who are financially self-sufficient.

The court noted that the father receives both a regular retirement pension and a family pension from his deceased wife’s government service. It clarified that the law (Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007) specifically safeguards parents who are unable to maintain themselves, and, considering the petitioner’s comfortable financial standing, rendered his eviction application invalid.

The centre of the dispute was a plot in Dattawadi, Nagpur. The father, a 65-year-old retiree, sought the eviction of his son and daughter-in-law. He claimed that although the property’s sale deed was registered in his son’s name in 2011, he (father) provided the funds for purchasing it. In 2020, the son gifted this property to his father by executing a gift deed. Later, in 2021, the father filed an eviction appeal under the Senior Citizens Act against them. However, the plea was rejected both by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the District Magistrate. The father then approached the High Court.

Arguments

The counsel for the petitioner (father) argued that the lower tribunals committed an error of law and contended that the petitioner’s right of existence in the property is non-negotiable and the fact that the gift deed was indeed registered cannot be ignored. The counsel referred to the Supreme Court precedents to argue that the 2007 Act permits the eviction.

The respondents’ counsel argued that the Act cannot be invoked because the petitioner receives his regular pension and his late wife’s family pension, and this makes him self-sufficient. The counsel also added that a civil suit to cancel the gift deed is already pending.

Court Observation

The Court observed that the 2007 Act was enacted to provide need-based maintenance and safeguard vulnerable elders who are ‘unable to maintain themselves’. The court also noted that the petitioner, who is getting a steady pension income, doesn’t come in the vulnerable category. Regarding the gift deed, it observed that whether it was a valid deed or not, the civil dispute is pending trial, and thus, the gift deed matter falls outside the summary jurisdiction of the tribunal.

The Court further noted that the petitioner had rejected a mediated proposal to reside on the ground floor while his son’s family agreed to shift to the first floor.

It stated, “… the proposal submitted by respondent No.1 that it is agreeable to the said respondent if his father i.e. the petitioner herein resides on the ground floor of the building while the respondents will shift to the first floor. The said proposal was also rejected by the petitioner.”

Court’s Judgment

The Court ruled that summary eviction is not an independent remedy under the 2007 Act; instead, it is there to enforce maintenance. Since the petitioner has self-sufficient pension income, he is ineligible to claim eviction in the guise of maintenance, and dismissed the writ petition as meritless.