HC quashes son’s eviction, says senior citizens’ law cannot be misused

The Bombay High Court overturned eviction orders against a man and his wife, ruling that the Senior Citizens Act can't be misused for eviction without valid claims.

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday set aside two orders of the Senior Citizen Tribunal that had directed a 53-year-old man and his wife to vacate a bungalow owned by his 75-year-old father, a retired IAS officer. The court held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, meant to protect vulnerable senior citizens, cannot be used as a tool for “summary eviction” when there is no allegation of harassment or denial of maintenance.

HC quashes son’s eviction, says senior citizens’ law cannot be misused

The dispute concerns a ground-plus-one bungalow in Andheri. The father, who lives with his wife in another flat in the same area, had allowed his son to stay in the bungalow “out of humanity, love and affection”. In March 2024, he approached the Tribunal seeking the son’s eviction, accusing him of taking “undue advantage” of his old age, encroaching on the entire premises, and renting out part of the house for TV serial shoots without permission. He also said he wanted to shift to the bungalow due to age-related ailments.

The son opposed the eviction and said his father lives comfortably in a 1,600 sq ft apartment with domestic staff and has several other residential and commercial properties. He relied on a written declaration from 2013, which, he said, allowed him and his wife to reside in the bungalow and conduct their business.

On August 26, 2025, the Tribunal ordered the son’s eviction within 30 days. The appellate Tribunal upheld the decision on October 1, 2025. The son then moved the high court, saying he was willing to let his father use the ground floor and sought permission to retain the first floor.

Before the HC, the father’s lawyer argued that mere pendency of a civil suit over property ownership, filed earlier by the son, could not prevent a senior citizen from seeking eviction under the Act.

A division bench of Justices RI Chagla and Farhan P Dubash noted, however, that the father had never claimed any maintenance from his son, which is the core requirement of the law. “The Act is a beneficial statute intended to safeguard the vulnerable senior citizen, but it cannot be (mis)used as a tool for summary eviction without fulfilment of statutory requirements,” the court said.

The bench also questioned why the father wanted to leave his well-equipped 1,600 sq ft apartment and move into a bungalow he had never lived in, rejecting his claim of “sentimental attachment”. It observed that the eviction plea appeared to be a “counter-blast” to the son’s 2019 suit seeking partition of several family properties.

The court further said eviction would leave the son without a roof, while the father was financially comfortable and owned multiple properties. It held that both Tribunals had failed to consider crucial facts, including the absence of any allegation of harassment or cruelty, essential grounds for invoking the senior citizens’ law.