Tribunal may order eviction of children to ensure a senior citizen’s right to a normal life.

The Petitioner is the son of Respondent No. 1 (a 73-year-old senior citizen).

Respondent No. 1 is the holder of Flat No. 403 (the Subject Flat), allotted to her as permanent alternate accommodation following the redevelopment of a tenanted chawl where she was the original tenant

In November 2023, the Petitioner allegedly broke open the lock of the flat and forcibly dispossessed Respondent No. 1, forcing her to live in rented premises in Badlapur

Respondent No. 1 filed an application for eviction and protection under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The Maintenance Tribunal ordered eviction, which was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal

The Petitioner challenged these orders via Writ Petition, arguing that an eviction application is not maintainable if the senior citizen is not also seeking monetary maintenance

Whether an application for eviction of a child/relative is maintainable under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, in the absence of a specific prayer for monetary maintenance

Whether the Petitioner has any legal right to occupy the subject flat against the wishes of the parent who holds the rights/interest in the property

The Court applied the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, specifically Section 2(b) which defines "maintenance" inclusively to include "residence"

and Section 4, which mandates that children must ensure parents can lead a "normal life"

The Court relied on the "purposive construction" doctrine for beneficial legislation

and cited Smt. S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (Supreme Court), establishing that eviction can be an incident of the right to maintenance and protection

It further followed Shweta Shetty v. State of Maharashtra and Ritika Prashant Jasani v. Anjana Niranjan Jasani, holding that the Act’s intent is to protect senior citizens' right to their own property

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s narrow interpretation that the Tribunal only has jurisdiction when monetary maintenance is claimed.

It reasoned that since "maintenance" under Sec 2(b) includes "residence," the right of a senior citizen to live in their own home is a fundamental component of the Act

The Court distinguished Jitendra Gorakh Megh v. Addl. Collector, noting that in the present case, the mother was forcibly dispossessed and subjected to harassment, unlike the "financially well-to-do" parent in Jitendra who never resided in the subject premises

The Court found that the Petitioner’s act of breaking into the flat and rendering the mother "roofless" constituted a failure to allow her to lead a "normal life" as required by Sec 4(2)

It held that in a metropolis like Mumbai, a maximum monetary award of ₹10,000 is insufficient to provide a "roof over the head," making the recovery of possession the only effective form of maintenance

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the eviction order, concluding that the Petitioner had no legal right to oust the mother from her tenement

The ad-interim relief staying eviction was extended for three weeks subject to the Petitioner filing an undertaking not to create third-party rights