The Bombay High Court quashed an eviction order against a 53-year-old man, ruling that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act protects vulnerable persons and cannot be used by senior citizens for summary eviction
A Bombay High Court bench observed that an eviction order under the Act cannot be passed in the absence of a maintenance claim by the senior citizen. File Pic
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act is intended to safeguard vulnerable persons and cannot be misused for summary eviction, the Bombay High Court (HC) ruled on Monday while quashing an eviction order against a 53-year-old man, news agency PTI reported.
A bench comprising Justices RI Chagla and Farhan Dubash observed that an eviction order under the Act cannot be passed in the absence of a maintenance claim by the senior citizen.
"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," the HC said, quashing an October order passed by a tribunal directing the man to vacate a bungalow owned by his 75-year-old father.
The tribunal had issued the eviction order following an application filed by the senior citizen, a retired IAS officer, alleging mental pressure. The HC noted that the senior citizen had not made any allegations of harassment or torture against his son.
The son approached the HC challenging the eviction order. He told the court that his father had allowed him to occupy the premises out of love and affection, but he, being unemployed for several years, had started using it for commercial purposes. The father opposed the plea, asserting that he was not seeking any financial assistance from his son, PTI reported.
The HC highlighted that the senior citizen lives in a separate apartment with his wife (the petitioner’s stepmother) and has never resided in the bungalow where his son was living. The court also referred to a 2013 agreement, under which the petitioner was permitted to reside in the bungalow and conduct business there indefinitely, without paying any money to his father.
The bench noted that the petitioner was incurring expenses for the premises, including maintenance, property and water taxes, and electricity. The HC observed that the senior citizen’s application appeared to be a counterblast to a partition suit filed by the petitioner.
"In fact, the senior citizen is financially well-to-do and owns several other immovable properties, both residential and commercial. If evicted, the petitioner would not have any other roof over his head," the court said.
(With PTI inputs)
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
