Limited Interim Protection Granted Against Immediate Dispossession Pending Statutory Appeal to Ensure Reasonable Breathing Time

The petitioner resides with his family in a house in Kawardha, which he claims is his only residential accommodation

Respondents No. 4 and 5 (parents of the petitioner) initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, resulting in an order dated 30.01.2026 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance and vacate the premises

The petitioner appealed this order before the Collector, Kabirdham. While an interim stay was initially granted on 09.04.2026, it was subsequently vacated

On 06.05.2026, the Tehsildar issued a notice (served on 07.05.2026) directing the petitioner to vacate the house by 07.05.2026, failing which coercive dispossession was scheduled for 08.05.2026

The petitioner challenged this notice on the grounds of undue haste and lack of alternative accommodation

1. Whether the court should grant interim protection against immediate dispossession while the statutory appeal is still pending before the Collector

2. Whether the notice period provided by the Tehsildar was sufficient to allow the petitioner to seek alternative remedies or accommodation

The Court considered the provisions of Sections 4 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which empower authorities to grant maintenance and ensure the possession of property for senior citizens

The Court also applied the principle of "reasonable breathing time," a doctrine of equity and natural justice, to prevent irreparable injury and allow a litigant a fair opportunity to avail of statutory remedies or arrange alternative housing before being forcibly dispossessed

The Court noted that the petitioner’s appeal against the original eviction order is currently pending before the Collector

While acknowledging that the lower authorities' interim stay had been vacated, the Court found that the Tehsildar’s notice dated 06.05.2026 required eviction by 07.05.2026, leaving the petitioner less than 24 hours to comply before coercive action

The Court opined that immediate dispossession of a family from their only residence without providing a short period for alternative arrangements would cause "grave hardship and irreparable injury"

Without ruling on the merits of the property dispute, the Court determined that the interest of justice required a limited stay to balance the statutory rights of the parents with the petitioner’s right to seek legal recourse

The Court ordered that the operation of the dispossession notice dated 06.05.2026 be stayed for a period of 15 days from the date of the order

The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the notice before the appropriate statutory forum

The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the pending appeal and left all questions open for the competent authority to decide