The Gauhati High Court has set aside an eviction order directing a man and his wife to vacate his father’s house, ruling that the maintenance tribunal responsible for the decision violated the principles of natural justice and statutory procedures. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita returned the case to the tribunal for a fresh hearing, emphasizing that quasi-judicial bodies must allow all parties to present evidence and maintain proper administrative records.
The ruling, delivered on July 14, nullifies a January 29 directive by a local maintenance tribunal that had ordered the son and daughter-in-law to leave the senior citizen’s residence within 30 days. The high court determined that the tribunal had passed the eviction order without granting the accused couple an opportunity to present their evidence.
Origins of the Family Dispute
The legal battle originated from a complaint filed by the senior citizen under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. He alleged that his son and daughter-in-law subjected him to persistent intimidation, harassment, and hostile treatment. The father claimed this behavior ultimately forced him to abandon his home and live in hotels and rented lodgings, severely impacting his safety, dignity, and mental well-being.
Prior to seeking eviction, the father had filed a maintenance claim, which the tribunal initially dismissed on the grounds that he possessed sufficient personal financial means. However, the Gauhati High Court set aside that dismissal in July 2025, granting the father permission to submit a fresh application under Section 5 of the 2007 Act. He subsequently filed the petition that led to the disputed eviction order.
Deficiencies in Tribunal Records
During the high court proceedings, senior advocate A K Bhuyan, representing the son and daughter-in-law, argued that the tribunal had not conducted a proper hearing despite assertions to the contrary in its written order. Bhuyan also asserted that the tribunal failed to comply with the Assam State Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2012.
Following an April 8 court directive to retrieve the tribunal’s files, the high court received photocopies of the case records. Upon review, the high court discovered significant administrative lapses, noting that the records lacked an index and a sequential order sheet. Justice Kalita noted that, apart from the final ruling issued on January 29, the tribunal had failed to document any day-to-day proceedings.
The court emphasized that maintaining detailed order sheets is essential to preserve accountability, judicial discipline, transparency, and public trust, while also enabling appellate courts to understand the chronological developments of a case.
Limits and Responsibilities of Quasi-Judicial Bodies
Justice Kalita clarified that maintenance tribunals do possess the authority to evict children or relatives from a senior citizen’s property if their presence deprives the parent of peaceful enjoyment of their home or threatens their security and dignity.
However, the court ruled that because these tribunals function as quasi-judicial bodies, they are legally bound to conform to the exact procedures established under the 2007 Act and the corresponding Assam state rules. The high court has now directed the tribunal to conduct a fresh assessment of the case in compliance with all procedural requirements and the principles of natural justice.
