In a significant ruling emphasizing the rights of senior citizens over their self-acquired properties, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by Dilip Marmat against an eviction order, directing him to vacate the premises within 30 days. The court observed that “senior citizens have the right to a peaceful income-giving residence” and upheld the order favoring the elderly respondent.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Dilip Marmat, the son-in-law of respondent No. 3, was residing in the latter’s house following the demise of his wife in 2018. Marmat claimed that he had invested in the construction of the house and argued that he was in adverse possession of the property. The dispute escalated when respondent No. 3, a retired BHEL personnel, filed a petition under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking eviction of the appellant, alleging harassment and non-maintenance.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) had ordered the eviction of Marmat on May 2, 2022, which was upheld by the Collector on August 1, 2022. A subsequent challenge to this decision before a Single Judge of the High Court was also unsuccessful, leading to the present appeal before the Division Bench.
Legal Issues Involved
Definition of ‘Children’ under the Act of 2007:
The appellant argued that as a son-in-law, he does not fall within the definition of ‘children’ under Section 2(a) of the Act.
The respondent countered that the definition is not exhaustive and impliedly includes a son-in-law who resided with the deceased daughter.
Rights under Section 23 of the Act of 2007:
The appellant contended that he had contributed to the house’s construction and had a financial stake.
The respondent argued that even a permissive transfer could be revoked if a senior citizen is in need of the property.
Eviction of a Permissive Occupant:
The appellant relied on Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684), stating that eviction cannot be ordered without a transfer deed.
The court referred to Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2), emphasizing that tribunals can order eviction for the well-being of senior citizens.
Court’s Observations and Judgment
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain, dismissed the writ appeal, ruling that:
The appellant had no legal right over the property.
The primary objective of the Act is to protect senior citizens, ensuring them a secure and peaceful environment.
The definition of ‘children’ is broad enough to encompass dependents like a son-in-law who had resided with the deceased daughter.
The eviction was necessary as the respondent required the house for financial stability and to care for his paralyzed wife.
The court emphasized:
“A senior citizen’s need for a peaceful residence cannot be overridden by mere permissive occupancy claims.”
Final Order
The court directed Dilip Marmat to vacate the premises within 30 days, failing which the local SHO was instructed to remove his belongings and hand over the property to respondent No. 3.
