The Bombay High Court has ruled that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, cannot be misused by one senior citizen to evict another from residential premises, especially when the dispute concerns property possession and not maintenance or welfare. The judgment came in the case of Vimal Dagadu Kate & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 882 of 2024.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a family dispute involving two sisters—both senior citizens—residing in different portions of a slum structure. Respondent No.2, the younger sister, filed a complaint under the Senior Citizens Act before the Maintenance Tribunal, seeking the eviction of her elder sister, Petitioner No.1, and her co-petitioner, from the first floor of the house, alleging encroachment.
On October 30, 2023, the Maintenance Tribunal passed an order directing the petitioners to hand over possession of the disputed first-floor premises to the respondent. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking to quash the Tribunal’s order.
Legal Issues Involved
The central legal question was whether the Maintenance Tribunal, constituted under the Senior Citizens Act, has the jurisdiction to entertain disputes that essentially amount to property possession conflicts between senior citizens.
Arguments Presented
Mr. Santosh S. Jagtap, appearing with Mr. Amar K. Shilwant, represented the petitioners.
Mr. Mahesh H. Chandanshiv was appointed for Respondent No.2, and Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP, represented the State.
Mr. Jagtap contended that the dispute was a civil dispute over possession, not a case of neglect or lack of maintenance. Mr. Chandanshiv argued that the Tribunal had rightly passed the eviction order, claiming the petitioners were unauthorized occupants who were also defaulting on utility payments.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Sandeep V. Marne ruled in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing that:
“Jurisdiction of Maintenance Tribunal cannot be invoked by one senior citizen to recover possession of premises from another senior citizen.”
He further observed:
“The proceedings appear…in the nature of suit for recovery of possession…which could not have been entertained and decided by the Tribunal.”
Importantly, the Court held that the dispute involved complicated questions of possession rights, which must be adjudicated by a competent civil court and not through a summary inquiry before the Tribunal.
On the argument raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of an alternate appellate remedy, Justice Marne stated:
“Since the order is without jurisdiction, there is no point in relegating the petitioners to alternate remedy of appeal.”
However, he clarified that this was an exceptional case and should not be treated as a precedent for bypassing statutory remedies in general:
“This order shall not be read to mean as if the alternate remedy of Appeal can be circumvented in every case.”
The High Court quashed the Tribunal’s eviction order dated October 30, 2023. It also granted liberty to Respondent No.2 to seek civil remedies available under the law. The petitioners were directed not to harass the respondent and to pay electricity and water dues for the first-floor premises.
