Bombay High Court
PRAVIN YASHWANT PANCHALversusPRAMILA YASHWANT PANCHAL
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- M S KARNIKS M MODAK
Holding
The Senior Citizens Tribunal’s order is quashed as it cannot be used to circumvent the ordinary civil remedy of eviction, and the related writ petitions are disposed.
Summary
The petitioners, co‑sharers of a family property, challenged an order of the Senior Citizens Tribunal that directed the petitioner to vacate his share and hand over peaceful possession to his 76‑year‑old mother. The mother had earlier filed a writ petition seeking enforcement of that order, which the High Court had directed the police to assist in implementing. The petitioner filed an interim application and an affidavit undertaking to maintain peace and pay maintenance, while both parties expressed willingness to settle the dispute amicably, including a possible sale of the property. The Court held that the Senior Citizens Tribunal could not be used to bypass the ordinary civil remedy of eviction and therefore quashed the Tribunal’s order. Consequently, the enforcement order and the related writ petition were set aside and both the writ petition and the interim application were disposed, with the parties assured of an amicable resolution.
Issues considered
- The validity of the Senior Citizens Tribunal’s order directing removal of a co‑sharer from the suit property.
- Whether proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act can be employed to avoid the regular civil court remedy of eviction.
- The appropriateness of enforcing the Tribunal’s order through police assistance.
- The effect of the petitioner’s affidavit and maintenance undertaking on the pending litigation.
Subjects
- Senior Citizens Tribunal
- property co‑ownership
- eviction
- civil remedy
- maintenance undertaking
- amicable settlement
- interim application
Judgment
903-904-wpl 4838-26-modified.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 4838 OF 2026
Pravin Yashwant Panchal & Anr. … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
AND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1335 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 9448 OF 2024
Pravin Yashwant Panchal … Applicant
In the matter between
Pramila Yashwant Panchal … Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
__________________________
Mr. Amrendra A. Sinha a/w. Mr. Pankaj Ghai for the Petitioners in WPL
4838/26.
Mr. Tanmay T. Jadhav for Respondent No.4.
Ms. Rupali Shinde, AGP for the Respondent-State.
__________________________
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATED : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026.
ORAL ORDER (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.)
1. The challenge in this petition is to the Order dated 3 rd January, 2024
passed by the Presiding Officer, Parents and Senior Citizen Tribunal,
Note – This order is corrected as per Speaking to the Minutes of Order dated 23 rd February, 2026.
Amk 1/8
903-904-wpl 4838-26-modified.doc
Mumbai Suburban District. The Tribunal by the impugned Order directed
the petitioner to remove himself from the Suit property. The Tribunal
directed that the peaceful possession of the suit property be handed over
by the petitioner to his mother i.e. respondent No.4.
2. Respondent No.4, who is the petitioner’s mother, is 76 years of age.
This petition was filed on 6th February, 2026 challenging the Order dated
3rd January, 2024. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 raised a serious
objection as regards the delay in filing this petition. It is submitted by
learned counsel for respondent No.4 that the petitioner is harassing
respondent No.4 and in fact petitioner was driven out of the house by the
deceased husband of respondent No.4 i.e. the petitioner’s father. In such
circumstances, it is prayed that the Order passed by the Tribunal does not
call for any interference.
3. We must note that respondent No.4 had filed Writ Petition No. 9448
of 2024 for executing the Order passed by the Tribunal, which is now
challenged by way of this Petition. By the Order dated 3 rd February, 2026,
the Petition was disposed of vide the following Order:-
“1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.
2. By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks enforcement of the
order dated 3rd January 2024 passed by the Senior Citizen
Tribunal in S.C.T./SR-182/2022.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that despite
several representations made to the In-charge of the Charkop
Note – This order is corrected as per Speaking to the Minutes of Order dated 23 rd February, 2026.
Amk 2/8
903-904-wpl 4838-26-modified.doc
Police Station, no steps have been taken to enforce the order
dated 3rd January 2024. The Petitioner is an old lady 75 years
of age. As per the order dated 3 rd January 2024, the concerned
Respondents were directed to handover the vacant possession
within a period of 15 days. It has been stipulated in clause No.4
of the operative part that if the order is not complied with, the
Petitioner has to take help of the concerned Police Station.
4. The Petitioner is permitted to approach the In-charge of
Charkop Police Station along with copy of this order. The
Petitioner shall make an appropriate Application along with
copy of this order to the In-charge of Charkop Police Station on
or before 9th February 2026. On Application so made, all
necessary assistance be provided by the In-charge of Charkop
Police Station to the Petitioner in ensuring that the order dated
3rd January 2024 passed by the Senior Citizen Tribunal is
enforced.
5. Learned AGP to communicate this order to the In-charge
of Charkop Police Station.
6. List on 4th March 2026 “For Compliance”.
7. Petition is disposed of.”
4. Factually, the Order is yet not complied with and the Writ Petition
filed by respondent No.4 is listed for compliance on 4th March, 2026.
5. No doubt, after the Order dated 3rd February, 2026 was passed by
this Court, that the present Petition came to be filed on 6 th February, 2026.
It is undisputed that the suit property in question which comprises
Ground+1 storied structure admittedly was of the ownership of the
Note – This order is corrected as per Speaking to the Minutes of Order dated 23 rd February, 2026.
Amk 3/8
903-904-wpl 4838-26-modified.doc
Petitioner’s father. The petitioner’s father died intestate. It is an admitted
fact that there are in all five co-sharers including the petitioner and
respondent No.4. The petitioner has 1/5th share in the suit property.
Factually, the petitioner is in possession of the first floor.
6. An affidavit has been filed by the Applicant – Pravin Yashwant
Panchal i.e. respondent No.4 in the writ petition stating thus:
“1. I state that this Affidavit is being filed in the Interim
Application No. 1335/2026, to place on record my
undertaking with respect to maintaining peace and
contributing maintenance to my mother the original petitioner
in WP No.9448/2024;
2. I state that my mother, Smt. Pramila Yashwant Panchal,
is residing in the ground floor portion of the premises bearing
address 606/15, Sector-6, Sneh Poonam CHSL, Kandivali
(West), Mumbai – 400067. I am residing separately on the
first-floor portion of the said premises along with my wife and
two children.
3. I have always maintained peace and cordial relations in
the past and shall continue to do so hereafter. I shall not in
any manner disturb, obstruct, or interfere with the peaceful
possession and residence of my mother in the ground floor
portion of the premises, nor shall I create any nuisance,
obstruction or adverse law-and-order situation in or around
the said premises.
4. In my family there are four members including me, my
wife, one son and one daughter. I do not have any fixed or
Note – This order is corrected as per Speaking to the Minutes of Order dated 23 rd February, 2026.
Amk 4/8
903-904-wpl 4838-26-modified.doc
regular independent source of income. My wife is a physically
disabled (80 percent blind) housewife. My daughter is
pursuing her education. Both my wife and my daughter have
no individual income. My son, is having education till 12 th,
and he is at present employed as an unskilled worker (i.e.
Captain/Rider) with an online-delivery platform company. His
monthly salary is Rs.16,399/- per month along with some
variable components.
5. The original petitioner has four children, three sons
(including myself) and one daughter. The property in
question belonged to my deceased father and, upon his
demise, devolved upon all his legal heirs in accordance with
law. All the children shall share equal responsibility to take
care of the original petitioner.
6. The total earning of my family of four members is
approximately 18,000 to 25,000/- per month. Without
prejudice to my rights and contentions in the pending Writ
Petition and other proceedings, I promise to pay a sum of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month towards
the maintenance of my mother.
7. The said amount shall be transferred directly to her bank
account on or before the 20 th day of each calender month. I
pray that the details of bank account of my mother whereof
may kindly be furnished to me.
8. The present undertaking is furnished voluntary and shall
not be construed as an admission of any allegations made
against me, nor as a waiver or relinquishment of any legal,
civil or succession rights claimed by me in the subject property
Note – This order is corrected as per Speaking to the Minutes of Order dated 23 rd February, 2026.
Amk 5/8
903-904-wpl 4838-26-modified.doc
which are pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Court.
9. I shall faithfully abide by any further directions that may
be passed by this Hon’ble Court.”
7. The petitioner is present in the Court and says that he will abide by
whatever is stated in the Affidavit. The statements made in the Affidavit
should allay any apprehension expressed by the learned counsel on behalf
of respondent No.4.
8. Additionally, it needs to be stated that in deference to the suggestion
of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel
for respondent No.4 agreed that the dispute needs to be resolved amicably.
It was suggested by learned counsel for respondent No.4 that in order to
avoid any dispute, respondent No.4 proposes to dispose of the property
and hand over the respective shares to all the co-sharers. Such an
arrangement is acceptable to the petitioner. This is so stated by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of the Petitioner, who is
present in the Court. In such view of the matter, subject to the other co-
sharers agreeing, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
counsel for respondent No.4 submit that should there be a buyer, who is
interested to purchasing the suit property, they would not have any
objection to the property being sold and the proceeds appropriated
towards their respective shares. This is a reasonable suggestion. The
parties may proceed with such a course.
Note – This order is corrected as per Speaking to the Minutes of Order dated 23 rd February, 2026.
Amk 6/8
903-904-wpl 4838-26-modified.doc
9. In this view of the matter, more so when admittedly, the petitioner is
co-sharer and in possession of the property, we are of the firm view that
the proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be used as a tool to
avoid the normal remedy of seeking eviction through the competent Civil
Court. In such view of the matter, the impugned Order passed by the
Tribunal calls for interference and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
10. In view of the aforesaid arrangement and considering that the Order
of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside, the Order dated 3rd February, 2026
passed by this Court now need not be enforced in view of this legal
impediment. Writ Petition No. 9448 of 2024 need not be listed for
compliance.
11. Interim Application No. 1335 of 2026 is disposed of in the light of
the aforesaid observations and in view of Affidavit filed by Pravin Yashwant
Panchal, petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 4838 of 2026 (Applicant in IA
No. 1335 of 2026).
12. The parties assure that the issue will be amicably resolved and that
they wish to maintain cordial relations. Recording this assurance, Writ
Petition No. 4838 of 2026 is disposed of.
13. List Writ Petition (L) No. 4838 of 2026 for compliance on 6 th April,
2026.
14. It is assured by the learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions
Note – This order is corrected as per Speaking to the Minutes of Order dated 23 rd February, 2026.
Amk 7/8
903-904-wpl 4838-26-modified.doc
of wife of the petitioner-Pravin, who is present in the Court premises, that
the DV proceedings bearing No. 145/2024 shall not be pressed and shall be
withdrawn. It is assured that the petitioner’s wife co-operate with the
respondent No.4 in quashing the proceedings. It is assured by learned
counsel for respondent No.4-mother that the electricity bill and the society
charges shall be shared equally and the basic amenities like water supply
shall be restored and use of washroom shall be permitted.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Note – This order is corrected as per Speaking to the Minutes of Order dated 23 rd February, 2026.
Amk 8/8
Checking your session…