PRASHANT JAIN vs USHA RANI

UKHC010146962026

2026:UHC:7852

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

WPMS/2523/2026

Prashant Jain --Petitioner


Versus
Usha Rani --Respondent

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J


1. Mr. Kaushal Sah Jagati, learned
counsel for the petitioner.

2. By means of this writ petition,
petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned order dated
10.05.2024 passed by the learned Parents and
Senior Citizens Tribunal/Conciliation
Officer/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haldwani,
District Nainital in Case No. 04/2015 of 2023,
Smt. Usha Rani & Another Vs. Prashant Jain &
Others, as well as the consequential appellate
tribunal order dated 09.06.2026 passed by the
learned District Magistrate, Nainital under
Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
(Annexure no. 12, Page No. 19 to 34 and 35 to
44).
(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
restraining the respondents from dispossessing
the petitioner from the residential house
bearing House No. 19-277 (17-36), Gali No. 11,
behild Pal Complex, Parvatiya Mohalla,
Haldwani, District Nainital and from the shop
being run under the name and style of M/s
Goyal Enterprises, pursuant to the impugned
orders.


3. Respondent nos. 1 & 2, are Aunts
(BUA) of the petitioner, who moved
application under Maintenance and Welfare
of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in
short “Senior Citizens Act”) for eviction of
petitioner and his wife ( respondent no. 3 )
from their shop & residential house. The

UKHC010146962026

2026:UHC:7852

Maintenance Tribunal allowed their
application vide order dated 10.05.2024.
Petitioner challenged said order before
Appellate Authority, his appeal was
dismissed by learned District Magistrate,
Nainital vide judgment dated 09.06.2026.
Thus feeling aggrieved by aforesaid orders,
petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that petitioner is living with his
paternal Aunts since childhood; however, his
Aunts, under influence of some outsider,
filed application under Section 23 of the
Senior Citizens Act for petitioner’s eviction
from the shop and residential house.

5. The sole contention raised by learned
counsel for petitioner is that Maintenance
Tribunal cannot order for eviction of a child
or relative from an immovable property.
Thus, it is contended that the order passed
by Maintenance Tribunal, impugned in this
writ petition, is without jurisdiction.

6. This Court is not impressed by the said
submission. Petitioner was looked after and
financially supported by his Aunts, ever
since he was a toddler and he was not only
residing in his Aunts’ house but he was also
running business from a shop, belonging to
them. Thus, he was under a duty to look
after his old and ailing Aunts (Bua), who
were aged about 80 & 70 years,
respectively, in 2023 when the application
was filed before Maintenance Tribunal.

7. Learned Maintenance Tribunal has
given valid reasons for passing eviction
order. Respondent nos. 1 & 2 are entitled to
live peacefully in the evening of their life;
since petitioner was not providing emotional
or financial support to them, but was
creating problems, therefore, Maintenance
Tribunal was justified in passing order of
eviction, which was affirmed by learned

UKHC010146962026

2026:UHC:7852

Appellate Tribunal.

8. The question whether eviction can be
ordered in proceedings under Senior
Citizens Act is no more res integra . Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Samtola Devi
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others,
reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 669 has
held as under:-

“30. The Senior Citizens Act vide Chapter-II
provides for maintenance of parents and senior
citizens. It inter alia provides a senior citizen or a
parent who is unable to maintain himself from his
own earning or the property owned by him shall
be entitled to make an application against his
parent or grand parent or against one or more of
his children (not a minor) or where the senior
citizen is issueless against specified relatives to
fulfil his needs to enable him to lead a normal
life. The Tribunal constituted under the Act on
such an application may provide for the monthly
allowance for the maintenance and expenses and
in the event they fail to comply with the order,
the Tribunal may for breach of the order issue a
warrant for levying fines and may sentence such
person to imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one month or until payment is made
whichever is earlier.

31. The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act,
nowhere specifically provides for drawing
proceedings for eviction of persons from any
premises owned or belonging to such a senior
person. It is only on account of the observations
made by this Court in S. Vanitha v.
Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District that the
Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act may also
order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to
ensure the protection of the senior citizens. The
Tribunal thus had acquired jurisdiction to pass
orders of eviction while exercising jurisdiction
under Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act which
otherwise provide for treating the sale of the
property to be void if it is against the interest of
the senior citizen.”

9. In the case of Ravi Kant Gupta vs
State of Uttar Pradesh & others rendered in
Diary No. 22768 of 2024 (decided on
04.08.2026) , Hon’ble Apex Court has taken
similar view while dealing with the power of

UKHC010146962026

2026:UHC:7852

passing order of eviction as per provisions of
the Senior Citizens Act. Para 11 and 12 of
the said judgment are reproduced below:-

“11. It is noteworthy that a three-Judge
Bench of this Court, while dealing with claims
arising out of the provisions of the Act and the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 held that the tribunal under the Act may
have the authority to order an eviction if it is
necessary and expedient to ensure the
maintenance and protection of a senior citizen or
a parent. It was further held that eviction would
be an incident of enforcement of right to
maintenance and protection. Taking into account
the aforesaid observations, a two-Judge Bench of
this Court, held that tribunal under the Act may
order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to
ensure the protection of senior citizens. Another
two-Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the
same view.

12. We are in respectful agreement with
the view taken by this Court on multiple
occasions. The reliance placed by the High Court
on its decision is misconceived.”

10. In view of the above discussion, there
is no scope for interference with the
impugned judgments and orders.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and
is dismissed.


(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)

01.09.2026
Aswal

NITI RAJ SINGH
ASWAL
Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.09.07 08:07:23 -07'00'