BHOLENATH MEVALAL NISHAD vs SHYAMDULARI MEVALAL NISHAD AND ORS

2026:BHC-AS:11142
WP 16375-25.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 16375 OF 2025

Bholenath Mevalal Nishad
Age: 46 yrs., Occ.- Business,
Presently Residing at Flat No. 403,
th
A-Wing, 4 Floor, The Baya Park
Central CHS Ltd., Sitaram Jadhav
Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai 13. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Shyamdulari Mevalal Nishad,
Age: 73 yrs., Occ. - Homemaker
Unemployed, presently residing at
A/401, Thanekar Hilchrist, Shirgaon.
Bhosale Nagar, Badlapur (E),
Thane District – 421 503

2. The Ld. Presiding Officer,
Welfare of Parents & Sr. Citizen
Tribunal cum Dy. Collector (S.P.)
Mumbai City.
3. The Addl. Collector cum Appellate
Authority, Appellate Tribunal for
Parents & Sr. Citizen, Mumbai City …Respondents
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Mr. S S Redekar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Mohan Pillai, for Respondent No. 1.
Ms. S R Crasto, AGP for the Respondent-State.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
th
RESERVED ON : 11 FEBRUARY 2026
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 05 MARCH 2026
SAINATH, PA 1/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the
consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner takes exception to a judgment and
th
order dated 30 October, 2025 passed by the Appellate
Tribunal whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner
against an order of eviction passed by the Maintenance
Tribunal under the provisions of the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (‘the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007’), came to be dismissed by
affirming the said order.
3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts
necessary for the determination of this petition can be
summarized as under:-
3.1 The Respondent No. 1 is the mother of the petitioner.
She is a senior citizen. The Respondent No. 1 claims to be
the holder of Flat No. 403, A-wing, the Baya Park Central
C.H.S. Ltd. (‘the subject flat’).
SAINATH, PA 2/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

3.2 The Respondent No. 1 filed an application before the
Maintenance Tribunal asserting inter alia that, the
petitioner had been residing separately from the
Respondent No. 1 since the year 2013. The petitioner had
instituted a suit against his brother Mr. Shankar Nishad –
younger son of Respondent No. 1. However, the said suit
th
came to be disposed by an order dated 07 April 2017
passed by the City Civil Court. The petitioner is aggressive
and quarrelsome in nature. The Respondent No. 1 had
thus been residing alongwith her younger son at Badlapur.
th
3.3 On 05 November, 2023, the Respondent No. 1
alleged the petitioner broke open the lock of the subject flat
and trespassed into the subject flat. The Respondent No. 1
approached the Police. As the FIR was not immediately
registered, the Respondent No. 1 was constrained to file a
private complaint. The Respondent No. 1 thus filed the
application before the Maintenance Tribunal seeking
protection from the petitioner and an order to direct the
petitioner to vacate the subject flat.
3.4 The petitioner resisted the application. The petitioner
contended that, the petitioner was permitted to occupy the
SAINATH, PA 3/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

subject flat in lieu of the Respondent No. 1 collecting rent
to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- to 30,000/- per month, of the
shop premises situated at Lower Parel, Mumbai. Since the
Respondent No. 1 was not claiming any maintenance, the
application for eviction of the petitioner was not
maintainable before the Maintenance Tribunal.
3.4 It was denied that, the petitioner had subjected the
Respondent No. 1 to harassment and torture. The
petitioner had also expressed willingness to maintain the
Respondent no. 1 out of whatever meager income the
petitioner was earning.
3.5 After appraisal of the rival contentions and the
th
material on record, by an order dated 04 March, 2025,
the Maintenance Tribunal was persuaded to allow the
application and direct the petitioner to vacate and deliver
the possession of the subject flat to Respondent No. 1. The
Maintenance Tribunal was of the view that, in her old age
the Respondent No. 1 had a right to live a normal life in
her own home with dignity and self-respect. The petitioner
has unlawfully occupied the subject flat by breaking open
SAINATH, PA 4/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

the lock. Hence, it was necessary to protect the residence
of the senior citizen/Respondent No. 1.
3.6 Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal
before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 16 of the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
3.7 By the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal
declined to interfere with the order passed by the
Maintenance Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal concurred
with the view of the Maintenance Tribunal that the
Respondent No. 1/senior citizen was entitled to live a
peaceful, dignified and normal life in her own home.
4. Being further aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked
the writ jurisdiction.
5. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the
Respondent No. 1.
6. I have heard Mr. Redekar, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Mohan Pillai the learned Counsel for the
Respondent No. 1, and Mr. Savina Crasto the learned AGP
for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – State. With the
SAINATH, PA 5/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

assistance of learned Counsel for the parties, I have also
perused the material on record.
7. Mr. Redekar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that, the application before the Maintenance
Tribunal for eviction simplicitor of the petitioner was not
maintainable. Inviting the attention of the Court to the
averments in the application before the Maintenance
Tribunal, especially the assertion that the Respondent No.
1 has been residing with her son at Badlapur and the
prayers in the application, particularly that of a direction
to the petitioner to vacate the subject flat, Mr. Redekar
would urge that, the application was clearly beyond the
jurisdictional competence of the Maintenance Tribunal. It
was submitted with tenacity that, an application for
eviction of the children/relative simplicitor without seeking
the relief of maintenance, is not maintainable.
8. Mr. Redekar would submit that, the petitioner is
sought to be singled out. Admittedly, the Respondent No. 1
has been residing with the brother of the petitioner at
Badlapur. The Maintenance Tribunal as well as Appellate
Tribunal have recorded in clear and explicit terms that, the
SAINATH, PA 6/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

senior citizen was not claiming maintenance. Thus, the
Tribunals had no authority to exercise the jurisdiction
under Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to order the eviction of the
petitioner from the subject flat.

9. To lend support this submission, Mr. Redekar placed
a very strong reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Jitendra Gorakh Megh V.
1
Additional Collector & Appellate Tribunal & Anr . Reliance
was also placed on another judgment of a learned Single
Judge of this Court in the case of Ranjana Rajkumar
2
Makharia Vs. Mayadevi Subhkaran Makharia & Ors . .
10. In opposition to this, Mr. Pillai the learned Counsel
for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that, the petitioner
presents himself as an ungrateful son. The petitioner has
not only subjected the Respondent No. 1 to harassment
but even broken open the door of the house of the
Respondent No. 1. A report was attempted to be lodged by
the Respondent No. 1, instantaneously. This very act of
breaking open the lock demonstrates the manner in which
the petitioner has been treating the Respondent No. 1.
1
WP(L)/31614/2025
2
2020 (3) Mh.L.J. 587
SAINATH, PA 7/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

11. Mr. Pillai laid emphasis on the fact that, the subject
flat stands in the name of the Respondent No. 1. The
petitioner has no right, title and interest in the subject flat.
Despite being the owner of the subject flat, the Respondent
No. 1 is constrained to reside at Badlapur in a rented
premises. Therefore, the Respondent No. 1 deserves
protection under the provisions of Senior Citizens Act,
2007.
12. Mr. Pillai would further urge that, it is not necessary
that the senior citizen must first apply for maintenance
and, in that case only, an order of eviction can be passed
towards securing the maintenance. In the facts of the case,
the Respondent No. 1 has not claimed monetary
maintenance from the petitioner. However, her need to have
a roof over her head, falls within the ambit of the definition
of “maintenance”, under Section 2(b) of the Senior Citizens
Act, 2007. Mr. Pillai further urged that, the provisions of
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 have an overriding effect and are
required to be interpreted so as to advance the object of the
said Act.

SAINATH, PA 8/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

13. Mr. Pillai placed reliance on a Division Bench
judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sunny
3
Paul V. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors . , wherein it was
enunciated that, keeping in view the fact that the
enactment being a social legislation and the same requires
to be given liberal interpretation to achieve the mandate of
the Act, 2007 i.e. for the welfare of the parents and senior
citizens and for the protection of their life and property,
there is no doubt that the Tribunal does have the
jurisdiction to direct vacation by the children of any
property in which the senior citizen has a right of
residence/possession.
14. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid
submissions canvassed across the bar. The moot question
that wrenches to the fore is : whether the application for
eviction of the children / relative simplicitor sans a prayer
for award of maintenance from the premises belonging to
the senior citizen is maintainable under the provisions of
the Act, 2007 ?
3
2017 SCC OnLine Del 7451
SAINATH, PA 9/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

15. In the quest of exploring an answer, reference to few
provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the
legislative object behind its enactment would be
indispensable. Under Section 2(h), “senior citizen” means
any person being a citizen of India, who has attained the
age of sixty years or above; under clause 2(a), “children”
includes son, daughter, grandson and grand-daughter but
does not include a minor; under clause (d), “parent” means
father or mother whether biological, adoptive or step father
or step mother, as the case may be, whether or not the
father or the mother is a senior citizen; and under clause
2(g), ‘relative’ means any legal heir of the childless senior
citizen who is not a minor and is in possession of or would
inherit his property after his death.
16. The Senior Citizens Act, 2007, primarily and
predominantly deals with the maintenance and welfare of
the parents and senior citizens. ‘Maintenance’ is defined
under clause (b), as under :
“(b) “maintenance” includes
provision for food, clothing,
residence and medical attendance
and treatment;”
SAINATH, PA 10/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

“Welfare” is defined under clause (k), as under :
“(k) “welfare” means provision for
food, health care, recretion centres
and other amenities necessary for
the senior citizens;”
17. Chapter II of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 subsumes
provisions under the caption “Maintenance of Parents and
Senior Citizens”. Under Section 4, a senior citizen,
including parent, who is unable to maintain himself from
his own earning or out of the property owned by him, is
entitled to make an application under section 5, in case of
(i) parent or grand-parent, against one or more of his
children not being a minor; (ii) a childless senior citizen,
against such of his relative referred to in clause (g) of
section 2. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 4 describes
the nature of the obligation of the children or relative to
maintain a senior citizen or parent by emphasizing that the
obligation extends to the needs of such senior citizen /
parent, so that he can lead a normal life.
18. Section 5 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 contains
provisions in regard to the application for maintenance.
Section 6 provides for jurisdiction and procedure to
SAINATH, PA 11/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

determine such application. Constitution of Maintenance
Tribunal is provided for under Section 7. Under Section 8,
the Tribunal, subject to the rules that may be prescribed
by the State Government, may follow such summary
procedure as it may deem fit. Under Section 9, the
Tribunal is empowered to award maintenance at such
monthly rate, as the Tribunal may deem fit, subject to the
maximum maintenance allowance as may be prescribed by
the State Government, which shall not exceed Rs.10,000/-
per month. Under Section 12, an option is given to the
senior citizen to seek maintenance under the Act, 2007 or
Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The
senior citizen may claim such maintenance under either
the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 or Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, but not under both. Section 15 provides
for constitution of Appellate Tribunal. Appeals are
provided under Section 16 before the Appellate Tribunal.
19. Chapter III deals with establishment of old age
homes. Provisions for medical care of senior citizens are
envisaged in Chapter IV. Chapter V is dedicated towards
the protection of life and property of senior citizens.
SAINATH, PA 12/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

Section 23, in particular, empowers the Tribunal to declare
the transfer of property by way of gift deed or otherwise,
made by the senior citizen, subject to the condition that
the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic
physical needs to the transferor, void if such transferee
refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical
needs. Section 27 of the Act, 2007 bars the jurisdiction of
civil court in respect of any matters to which any
provisions of the said Act applies. Section 3 gives
overriding effect to the provisions of Act, 2007 over the
provisions of any other enactment or instrument.
20. At this juncture, ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons’
of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, deserves to be noted. It
reads as under :
“Statement of Objects and Reasons”
Traditional norms and values of the Indian
society laid stress on providing care for the
elderly. However, due to withering of the joint
family system, a large number of elderly are
not being looked after by their family.
Consequently, many older persons,
particularly widowed women are now forced
to spend their twilight years all alone and are
exposed to emotional neglect and to lack of
physical and financial support. This clearly
SAINATH, PA 13/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

reveals that ageing has become a major social
challenge and there is a need to give more
attention to the care and protection fo the
older persons. Though the parents can claim
maintenance under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the procedure is both time-
consuming as well as expensive. Hence,
there is need to have simple, inexpensive and
speedy provisions to claim maintenance for
parents.”
21. A conjoint reading of the provisions contained in the
Act, 2007 as a whole, in the light of the Statement of
Objects and Reasons, makes the intent of the legislature
explicitly clear. The Parliament intended to address
alarming situation caused by the neglect and harassment
of the parents and senior citizens in the evening of their
life. Senior Citizens were found to be deserted and
deprived of the basic physical necessities, medical care and
amenities which are required the most in the advanced
age. Many elderly persons, particularly widowed women,
were found to have been forced to spend their twilight
years all alone, and were exposed to emotional neglect and
want of physical and financial support. This mischief was
sought to be addressed by the Parliament by providing a
simple, inexpensive and speedy mechanism to claim
SAINATH, PA 14/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

maintenance and also by making provisions for the
institutionalized care of the senior citizens in old age
homes, medical support and, most importantly, protection
of life and property of the senior citizens. The Statement of
Objects and Reasons specifically records that, though
under the provisions of the Code, 1973, parents can claim
maintenance, the procedure was both time consuming as
well as expensive.
22. The capacious breadth of the provisions of the Act,
2007 leaves no manner of doubt that it is a beneficial
legislation, enacted to advance the object of care and
protection of the senior citizens. Thus, while interpreting
the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, it is
imperative to adopt tools of interpretation which are
required to be applied when interpreting the beneficial
piece of legislation. The cardinal principle is that the
beneficial legislation must receive liberal construction in
consonance with the objectives such legislation seeks to
achieve. Interpretative process must be attuned to the
purposive construction informed by the legislative object.
In a given case, if two views are plausible, the Court must
lean in favour of an interpretation which favours the
SAINATH, PA 15/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

beneficiaries rather than one which stultifies object of the
beneficial legislation.
23. A profitable reference, in this context, can be made to
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. H.
4
Nazar V/s. Mathew K. Jacob , wherein the Supreme Court
exposited the approach to interpretation of a beneficial
legislation, as under :
“11. Provisions of a beneficial legislation have
to be construed with a purpose-oriented
approach. The act should receive a liberal
construction to promote its objects. Also, literal
construction of the provisions of a beneficial
legislation has to be avoided. It is the court’s duty
to discern the intention of the legislature in
making the law. Once such an intention is
ascertained, the statute should receive a
purposeful or functional interpretation.
……
13. While interpreting a statute, the problem or
mischief that the statute was designed to remedy
should first be identified, and then a construction
that suppresses the problem and advances the
remedy should be adopted. It is settled law that
exemption clauses in beneficial or social welfare
legislations should be given strict construction. It
was observed in Shivram A. Shiroor V. Radhabai
4
(2020) 14 SCC 126
SAINATH, PA 16/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

5
Shantaram Kowshik that the exclusionary
provisions in a beneficial legislation should be
construed strictly so as to give a wide amplitude
to the principal object of the legislation and to
prevent its evasion on deceptive grounds.
Similarly, in Minister Administering the Crown
6
Lands Act V/s. NSW Abaroginal Land Council ,
Kirby, J. held that the principle of providing
purposive construction to beneficial legislations
mandates that exceptions in such legislations
should be construed narrowly.”

(emphasis supplied)
24. Keeping in mind the aforesaid beneficial intent of the
statute, some of the key provisions of the Act, 2007,
adverted to above, deserve to be revisited.

24.1 Firstly, the definition of maintenance under Section
2(b) is inclusive. Maintenance includes provision for food,
clothing, residence, medical attendance and treatment.
Evidently, the definition of maintenance is of wide
amplitude. The Parliament has designedly not given
restrictive meaning to the term ‘maintenance’.

24.2 Secondly, the term ‘property’ under section 2(f) of the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007, has also been defined in
5
(1984) 1 SCC 588
6
(2008) 237 CLR 285
SAINATH, PA 17/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

expansive terms. Property means, property of any kind,
whether movable or immovable, ancestral or self-acquired,
tangible or intangible and includes rights or interests in
such property.
24.3 Thirdly, the obligation of the children or relative to
maintain the senior citizen or parent under Section 4(2)
and (3), as the case may be, extends to the needs of such
senior citizen or parent so that he may lead a normal life.
This statutory obligation, in contradistinction to the moral
or pious obligation, if read in juxtaposition with the
definition of maintenance under Section 2(b), further
expands the protective umbrella of the Senior Citizens Act,
2007. So construed, the obligation to maintain a senior
citizen in such manner as to the facilitate the senior citizen
to lead a normal life transcends the monetary
connotations.
24.4 The obligation of the children or relative under
Section 4(2) and (3) impliedly gives statutory recognition to
the right of the senior citizen to live a life free from neglect,
harassment, exploitation, physical and emotional
disturbance. The expression ‘normal life’ connotes a safe,
SAINATH, PA 18/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

dignified, peaceful and physical and emotional stress free
life. A senior citizen is entitled to safeguard his physical
and mental health. All the facets which make life a normal
life, given the situation in life of the senior citizen, are
subsumed within the expression ‘normal life’.
25. In the case of Jitendra Gorakh Megh (supra), the
Division Bench of this Court considered the following
question :
“Whether an eviction order can be passed
under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 without any
claim towards maintenance being made by the
senior citizen ?
26. After adverting to the facts of the case, the
Statement of Objects and Reasons, key provisions of the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the judicial precedents,
including the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Smt. S. Vanitha V/s. The Deputy Commissioner,
7
Bengaluru Urban District and Ors. and judgments of this
Court in the cases of Ranjana Rajkumar Makharia V/s.
8
Mayadevi Subhkaran Makharia , Ritika Prashant Jasani
7
Civil Appeal/3822/2020 dt. 15/12/2020
8
2020(3) Mh.L.J. 587
SAINATH, PA 19/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

9
V/s. Anjana Niranjan Jasani and Shweta Shetty V/s.
10
State of Maharashtra and Ors. , the Division Bench
enunciated, inter alia , as under :
“20. Section 4 of the Act contains provisions dealing
with the maintenance of parents and senior
citizens. It prescribes that a senior citizen who is
unable to maintain himself from his own earnings
or from property owned by him, is entitled to make
an application for maintenance under Section 5 of
the Act. The said section further prescribes that the
obligation of children to maintain the senior citizen
extends to the needs of such senior citizen so that
he may lead a normal life. Section 5 contains
provisions relating to the application which the
senior citizen can make for maintenance. Sub-
section (2) enables the Tribunal to order monthly
allowance to be paid to the senior citizen towards
interim maintenance. In these circumstances, when
the senior citizen has made no claim for
maintenance, we fail to see how the said application
which has been filed by the senior citizen under
section 5(2) of the Act, is maintainable, in the first
place. This position appears to have been
completely overlooked, both in the eviction order
and also in the appellate order.
……
24. 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
9
2021 SCC Online Bom 1802
10
2021 SCC Online Bom 4575
SAINATH, PA 20/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

for summary eviction without the fulfilment of
statutory requirements. In the present case, we find
that the said application does not satisfy the
requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and is
therefore not maintainable. Accordingly, the
eviction order could not have been passed by the
Tribunal and upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, vide
the appellate order. The senior citizen has not
claimed any maintenance from the Petitioner and
the order of eviction is not in furtherance thereof.
Eviction, as also held in S. Vanitha (supra) would
be an incident of the enforcement of the right to
maintenance and protection which should be
granted only after adverting to the competing
claims of both parties in dispute. This has
admittedly not been done in the appellate order or
in eviction order (which it confirms).
25. In fact, the senior citizen is financially well-to-
do and owns several other immovable properties,
both residential and commercial and instead, the
record reveals that the Petitioner (if evicted from the
subject premises) would not have any other roof
over his head. This is not disputed by the senior
citizen in the said application who in-fact asserts
that the Petitioner has been unemployed for several
years. In such circumstances, it was incumbent on
the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal to have
considered these material factors before passing the
eviction and appellate orders. This has admittedly
not been done. Instead, the eviction order accepts
all the averments made in the said application and
proceeds to hold that since the subject premises
SAINATH, PA 21/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

belong to the senior citizen and he needs to reside
therein since he travels frequently for medical
treatment, the Petitioner is required to be evicted
therefrom.
26. The eviction order is thus clearly contrary to
the scheme of the Act. In fact, the Tribunal and the
Appellate Tribunal have both also lost sight of the
fact that the said application is bereft of any
allegations of harassment and/or cruelty by the
Petitioner, which has not been considered whilst
passing the eviction order and the appellate order.
There is no finding, let alone any discussion in
terms of Section 9 of the Act, that the senior citizen
had suffered neglect at the hands of the Petitioner,
which was required as per the decision in Ritika
Prashant Jasani (supra). Hence, both the appellate
order as also the eviction order, cannot be
sustained.
27. The decision in Shweta Shetty (supra) is of no
assistance to the senior citizen and is easily
distinguishable on its facts. In that case, the
daughter who was initially residing in Germany,
returned to India and began residing with the
senior citizen and refused to vacate his premises,
unless she was given ‘her share’. Nasir V/s. Govt. of
11
NCT of Delhi and Ors . was a case where the
Tribunal permitted the senior citizen, who was
admittedly the owner of the property, to occupy one
floor and give out the other two floors on rent and
recover the income therefrom. This is also
distinguishable on facts. Hence, neither decision is
11
2015 SCC Online Del 13060
SAINATH, PA 22/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

of any assistance to the senior citizen.”
27. At this stage, as noted above, the expansive and wide
definition of maintenance, and, obligation of the children
and relative, assume critical salience. If a senior citizen is
turned out of her home and made to take shelter in the
premises of another child / relative, can it be said that the
obligation of the child / relative who is alleged to have
driven the senior citizen out of her home, to maintain the
senior citizen is discharged ? Would it still be incumbent
upon the senior citizen to first seek maintenance from
such child/relative who has allegedly driven her out of her
property ?
28. A purposive interpretation of the provisions of the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 would provide a legitimate
answer. In a situation of the present nature, the senior
citizen can be said to be enforcing her right to lead a
normal life, which obligation is correspondingly and
statutorily cast on the child/relative. Definition of
maintenance, which includes residence; has both positive
and negative connotations. In the positive form, there is
an obligation on the child / relative to provide residence to
SAINATH, PA 23/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

the parent/senior citizen in case the parent/senior citizen
does not hold the property as defined under section 2(f) of
the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. In the negative sense, there
is an obligation on the child/relative not to dispossess a
senior citizen of her own residence and when a senior
citizen approaches the Tribunal seeking eviction of the
child / relative, who has allegedly dispossessed the senior
citizen forcibly or by making the life of the senior citizen
miserable by acts of omission or commission, the prayer
still partakes the character of enforcing the obligation of
the child / relative to allow the senior citizen to lead a
normal life.
29. In the case of Shweta Shetty (supra) , a Division
Bench of this Court repelled an identical challenge to the
order of the Maintenance Tribunal. In that case, senior
citizen was seeking to evict from his flat, one of the
daughters, who had forced herself upon the senior citizen.
A submission was canvassed on behalf of the daughter
that, it was impermissible under the scheme of the Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 to seek eviction of a person for, under
Section 5, only an application for maintenance could be
entertained by the Tribunal, and, thus, the Tribunal had
SAINATH, PA 24/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

acted without jurisdiction in directing eviction of the
daughter.
30. The Division Bench negatived the challenge, after
adverting to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in
the case of Ritika Prashant Jasani (supra) , in the following
terms :
“9. As to the jurisdictional question we do not believe
the point is well taken. The definition of maintenance
in clause 2(b) reads thus :
“(b) “maintenance” includes provision for food,
clothing, residence and medical attendance and
treatment;”
10. Clearly it includes residence; and this means
residence of the senior citizen.
12. In Jasani, therefore, the claim of the appellant was
that the house was a ‘shared household’, i.e. that she
had a legally definable right in the property itself. That
is not the case before us at all, where Shweta accepts
that she has no right in the flat in question. The mere
use of the word ‘eviction’ is not by itself determinative.
To constitute eviction, or to invoke any prohibition
against eviction, it must be shown that some legally
enforceable civil right of the appellant in the property
itself has been determined and that the appellant has
been denied that right. Removal of a person with no
right in the premises is not eviction so as to attract any
such prohibition. After all, as Jasani notes, the
statutory intent is to protect senior citizens. It is not to
foist on senior citizens an imaginary claim over their
own property where the claimant has no such right to
begin with. The statutory intent is not to limit the
SAINATH, PA 25/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

rights of senior citizens, but exactly the reverse.”
(emphasis supplied)
31. The Division Bench in the case of Shweta Shetty
(supra) , also adverted to another judgment of a learned
Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dattatrey Shivaji
12
Mane V/s. Lilabai Shivaji Mane , wherein it was
enunciated that Section 4 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007
cannot be read in isolation but has to be read with Section
23 and also Sections 2(b), (d) and (f) of the said Act, 2007
and the mother cannot be restrained from recovering
exclusive possession from her son or other family members
for the purpose of generating income from the said
premises or to lead a normal life.
32. In Shweta Shetty (supra) , the Division Bench also
followed the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High
Court in the case of Sunny Paul (supra ), and observed
with reference to the enunciation of law in Dattatrey
Shivaji Mane (supra) and Sunny Paul (supra) , as under :
“We entirely endorse the views of the learned
Single Judge and accept them as our own.
We are also fully in agreement with the views
of the Division Bench of the Delhi High
Court in the case of Sunny Paul (supra), a
12
(2018) 6 Mah LJ 681
SAINATH, PA 26/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

most careful and elaborate judgment that
includes what appears to us to be a
comprehensive overview of the
jurisprudence.”
33. In the case of Dinesh Bhanudas Chandanshive
(supra) , which again arose out of the struggle of a mother,
who was illegally ousted from her own abode, to take back
the same from her son, the Division Bench after following
the decision in the case of Shweta Shetty (supra) , rejected
the challenge to the order passed by the Maintenance
Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal had no
jurisdiction to order eviction. It was, inter alia , exposited
that, during the lifetime of the parents, children cannot
assert any legal right whatsoever in respect of the property
of their parents claiming exclusive ownership or possession
of the parents property. The mother certainly deserves to
be maintained from her own tenement. The Petitioner has
no legal right whatsoever to oust the mother from her
tenement so as to make her roofless and/or deprive
maintenance from her tenement.
34. At this stage, the decision in the case of Smt. S.
Vanitha (supra) , deserves to be consulted. The Supreme
SAINATH, PA 27/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

Court in the said case has illuminatingly postulated the
path to be traversed where two enactments, namely, the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, both having non-
obstante clauses compete for operation. It was enunciated
that the Tribunal must adopt a harmonious construction.
In paragraph No.17 of the said judgment, the Supreme
Court postulated that the Tribunal may have the authority
to order an eviction, if it is necessary and expedient to
ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior
citizen or parent. Eviction, in other words, would be an
incident of the enforcement of the right to maintenance
and protection. However, this remedy can be granted only
after adverting to the competing claims in the dispute.
35. It is in the aforesaid context, in the case of Samtola
13
Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors , it was enunciated
that the provisions of the Act, nowhere specifically provides
for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any
premises owned or belonging to such a senior citizen. It is
only on account of the observations made by the Supreme
Court in S. Vanitha (supra) , that the Tribunal under the
13
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 445
SAINATH, PA 28/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

Senior Citizens Act, may also order eviction if it is
necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the
senior citizens. It must be noted that the decision in
Samtola Devi (supra), also turned on the peculiar facts of
the said case.
36. The matter can be looked at from the two other
perspectives, especially where the allegation is that the
senior citizen has been driven out of her own
home/property. First, under the provisions of Section 23
of the Act, 2007, the Tribunal is conferred with the
authority to declare a transfer, made by the senior citizen
in favour of the transferee, void if the transferee refuses or
fails to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the
transferor, post transfer. In a sense, the power is drastic in
nature. The Tribunal is empowered to declare a registered
instrument inter vivos void, and, resultantly, put the
transferor – senior citizen in possession of the property for
failure of the condition subsequent; express or implied.

37. Indeed, the said measure falls under the Chapter of
Protection of life and property of senior citizen. However, if
the provisions of the Act, are read as a whole, chapter by
SAINATH, PA 29/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

chapter, section by section; and word by word; which is
the standard rule of interpretation (Reserve Bank of India
V/s. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and
14
Ors.) , then if the Tribunal is empowered to declare a
transfer, which has already been effected by instruments
inter vivos void, a fortiori , the Tribunal in exercise of its
power to enforce the right of maintenance of the senior
citizen and the corresponding obligation of the child /
relative, would have the authority to order eviction of the
child / relative who has unlawfully dispossessed the senior
citizen or created an atmosphere which forces the senior
citizen to take shelter elsewhere than her own home.

38. Second, under the provisions of the Act, the Tribunal
can award maintenance not exceeding Rs.10,000/- per
month. In a metropolis like Mumbai, where the property
commands premium, for a senior citizen, who is
dispossessed of her own premises, an award of
maintenance of the maximum amount of Rs.10,000/- per
month can hardly be a solace. The said amount would
hardly be sufficient to have a roof over the head of the
senior citizen.
14
(1987) 1 SCC 424
SAINATH, PA 30/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

39. Thus, the submission premised on the impression

that the maintenance under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007
can be measured only in monetary terms, is fallacious and
does not merit countenance.
40. In the light of the aforesaid consideration, this Court
must revert to the decision in the case of Jitendra Gorakh
Megh (supra). From the perusal of the said judgment, in
its entirety, it becomes abundantly clear that the peculiar
facts of the said case, including that the senior citizen had
never resided in the subject premises; the senior citizen
resided in a separate residential flat in another society with
his wife, which was not claimed to be unsuitable for the
senior citizen; there was a declaration by the senior citizen
expressly permitting the Petitioner therein to reside in the
subject flat and to conduct business therefrom, for as long
as the Petitioner therein desired, without any charges for
the occupation; there was no allegation of harassment
and/or cruelty made by the senior citizen and the senior
citizen appeared to be financially sound and owned several
other immovable properties, both residential and
commercial, and, in contrast, the Petitioner therein, if
SAINATH, PA 31/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

evicted from the subject flat, would not have any other roof
over his head weighed with the Division Bench. In the
respectful understanding of this Court, in the backdrop of
aforesaid facts, especially the sound financial position of
the senior citizen who was found to have a number of
properties, no allegation of cruelty and/or harassment at
the hands of the Petitioner therein, and the said
application having been filed as a counter-blast to the suit
instituted by the Petitioner therein, the Division Bench
ruled that, such an application without seeking
maintenance was not maintainable.
41. I am, thus, of the considered view that it cannot be
laid down as an immutable and absolute rule of law that
the application for eviction simplicitor sans the prayer for
monetary maintenance is not maintainable, even when the
senior citizen claims that she has been dispossessed of her
property or she requires the property to generate income
out of the said property to lead a normal life. To hold
otherwise, would amount to defeating the very objective of
the Act, 2007.
SAINATH, PA 32/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

42. Mr. Redekar laid emphasis on the fact that
respondent No.1 is not the absolute owner of the subject
flat. A strenuous effort was made to drag home the point
that the subject flat came to be allotted as a permanent
alternate accommodation in lieu of the old house premises
bearing House No.91/34 Pardiwala Chawl, which came to
be redeveloped. Mr. Redekar advanced a criticism that the
Tribunals under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, despite
having noted the said fact, have proceeded to pass the
order of eviction against the petitioner. In substance, Mr.
Redekar’s submission was that the petitioner also has a
right to occupy the subject flat and he could not have been
evicted by resorting to the summary procedure under the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007, especially when respondent No.1
neither required nor claimed maintenance.
43. The material on record, however, indicates the nature
of right and interest of respondent No.1 in the subject flat,
nay the character of the subject flat. The letter of
th
possession dated 11 August, 2023 issued by Renaissance
Homes, the developer, clearly indicates that the possession
of the subject flat was delivered to respondent No.1 as and
by way of permanent alternate accommodation, pursuant
SAINATH, PA 33/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

st
to the PAAA dated 21 April, 2019 registered with the
Registrar of Assurances. The said letter clearly indicates
that, by and under the captioned PAAA, respondent No.1
was allotted the new premises i.e. Flat No.403, Wing A,
Baya Central - the subject flat. The said communication
prima facie implies that the PAAA was executed with
respondent No.1 and the possession of the subject flat was
also allotted, and its possession was delivered, to
respondent No.1.
44. The nature of the subject flat also becomes explicitly
clear from the order passed by the City Civil Court in Suit
No.0101604/2014, which was instituted by the petitioner
against his brother Shankar. The said order reads as
under:
“Adv. Sandeep Ghogre for plaintiff present.
Defendant present. Adv. Bankar for defendant
present. Ld. Advocate for defendant on instruction
from defendant who is present in the Court,
submits that since the plaintiffs and defendant are
real brothers, all staying in the suit hose at the
mercy of their mother who is the tenant. He had
never caused any disturbance to the occupation of
the plaintiffs and he submits that he would never
ever cause any disturbance to their occupation
therein. The statement is accepted. Ld. Counsel for
SAINATH, PA 34/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

the plaintiff in view of the aforesaid statement,
submits that the suit itself be disposed off. In such
circumstances suit as well as Notice of Motion No.
2253/2014 stands disposed off.”
45. Evidently, the aforesaid order pertains to the
premises in which the parties were residing before the
subject flat came to be allotted to respondent No.1. Both
the brothers have conceded that they were staying in the
suit house at the mercy of their mother (R1 herein), who
was the tenant of the said premises. Thus, the right and
interest of respondent No.1 even in the premises which
went for redevelopment cannot be controverted.
46. It is imperative to note that, the possession of the
subject flat was delivered to respondent No.1 vide letter
th
dated 11 August, 2023. Obviously, the old premises was
demolished and redeveloped. Thus, the petitioner cannot
claim that he had been residing in the old premises
immediately preceding the delivery of possession of the
subject flat. That lends prima facie support to the claim of
respondent No.1 that the petitioner had been residing
separately in Lower Parel, (East), Mumbai.
47. It is in the aforesaid context, the allegations of
th
respondent No.1 that on 5 November, 2023, the petitioner
SAINATH, PA 35/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

broke open the door of the subject flat and forcibly
dispossessed her, deserves to be appreciated. The alleged
dispossession occurred under a couple of the months of
the delivery of the possession of the subject flat by the
developer to respondent No.1. The latter has instituted a
private complaint against the petitioner for committing
trespass and forcibly dispossessing her.
48. The Appellate Tribunal has recorded that it is a
matter of fact that respondent No.1 is residing in a rented
premises at Badlapur. The said fact could not be
controverted. It is not the case of the petitioner that the
respondent is residing at Badlapur in the premises which
she, or for that matter his younger brother, owns. At this
juncture, the expansive definition of “property” under
Section 2(f) of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 assumes
significance. The term, “property” includes rights and
interest in the property whether movable or immovable,
ancestral or self-acquired, tangible or intangible. In the
face of the expansive definition of property, the submission
of Mr. Redekar that respondent No.1 senior citizen is not
the absolute owner of the subject flat thus falls through. In
SAINATH, PA 36/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

no circumstances, it could be controverted that respondent
No.1 has right and interest in the subject flat.
49. The position which, thus, obtains is that respondent
No.1 has been forcibly dispossessed of her flat. The
petitioner by forcibly barging into the subject flat and, in a
sense, forcing himself upon respondent No.1, has
committed the breach of the obligation under Section 4(3)
of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Conversely, respondent
No.1 has been deprived of the roof over her head. The
resultant effect is that respondent No.1 on account of being
deprived of her own residence finds unable to maintain
herself. If the averments in the application before the
Maintenance Tribunal are considered through the prism of
the circumstances which forced respondent No.1 to lodge
private complaint against the petitioner for having
committed trespass into the subject flat and thereby
dispossessed her, the element of refusal or neglect to
maintain the senior citizen as envisaged by Section 9 of the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be said to have been made
out.
50. I am, therefore, persuaded to hold that in the facts of
the case, the Tribunals were justified in ordering the
SAINATH, PA 37/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::

WP 16375-25.DOC

eviction of the petitioner towards the enforcement of the
right of respondent No.1 for maintenance and protection.
51. Hence, the following order:-
: : O R D E R : :
i] The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
ii] Rule discharged.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks
continuation of the ad-interim relief.
As the order is of eviction, the ad-interim relief shall
continue to operate for a period of three weeks subject to
the petitioner filing an undertaking, not to create any third
party rights and part with possession of the subject flat,
within a period of one week from today.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
Digitally signed
by ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date:
2026.03.06
21:00:32 +0530
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
SAINATH, PA 38/38
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:19:57 :::