CARSON PERCY VALLADARESversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA REPRESENTER AND ANR

                                                                           -WP-2206-2025.DOC




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 2206 OF 2025


                      Carson Percy Valladares
                      Aged 52 Years, Occ.: Service
                      R/a Percy Villa, 103, Kalina Village,
                      Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400029                         ...Petitioner

                            Versus

                       1. State of Maharashtra
                      Representing
                      (a) Chief Presiding Officer, Tribunal for
                      Maintenance of Parents and Senior
                      Citizens and Sub-Divisional Officer,
                      Mumbai, Western Suburbs,

                      (b) Appellate Tribunal and Additional Collector,
                      Mumbai Suburban District Both having
                      office at Administrative Building, 9th Floor,
                      Bandra (E),
                      Mumbai – 400 051
                      through the Govt Pleader,
                      High Court (A.S.), Bombay.

                      2. Percy Mario Valladares
ARUN
                      Aged 83 years, Occ.: Retired
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL               R/s Percy Villa, 103, Kalina Village,
Digitally signed by
                      Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400 029                    …Respondents
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.08.27
21:02:39 +0530




                      Ms. Sonal Parab, with Esha Rane and Sudhanshu Sawant, i/b R.B.
                             Mungekar, for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Y.D. Patil, AGP, for Respondent No.1-State.
                      Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, with Keral Mehta, for Respondent No.2.



                      ARS                                     1/26
                                                           -WP-2206-2025.DOC

                               CORAM :        N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                       RESERVED ON :          11th AUGUST 2026
                   PRONOUNCED ON :            27th AUGUST 2026


JUDGMENT :

1.       Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of

the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2.     By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the

Petitioner takes exception to a judgment and order dated 12 th December

2024 passed by the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 54 of 2024,

whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against an order dated

11th September 2024 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal under the

Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“the

Act, 2007”), came to be dismissed affirming the order passed by the

Maintenance Tribunal thereby, inter alia, directing the Petitioner to

vacate the house premises, Percy Villa, 103, Kalina Village, Santacruz

(E), Mumbai (“the subject premises”) and deliver its vacant possession to

Respondent No.2.

3.     Shorn of superfluities, background facts can be stated as under:

3.1    Respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as “the senior citizen”)

is the father of the Petitioner. The senior citizen has been residing

alongwith his wife Ms. Loreta; who is also a senior citizen, and other

family members in the subject premises. The senior citizen has two sons


ARS                                    2/26
                                                        -WP-2206-2025.DOC

namely, Carson, the Petitioner herein and Gleeson, and a daughter Ms.

Sarita.

3.2   The senior citizen filed an Application before the Maintenance

Tribunal under Section 5 of the Act, 2007 seeking orders to evict the

Petitioner from the subject premises and restrain the Petitioner and his

friends/agents etc, from entering into the subject premises, with the

assertion that the Petitioner has an abusive and aggressive temperament

and that has led to marital discord between the Petitioner and his wife.

Though the Petitioner is working at a very senior position in a reputed

company and earns sumptuous remuneration and owns multiple

immovable properties, yet,    the Petitioner has been residing in the

subject premises. The Petitioner has been coercing the senior citizen to

sell off his properties and pay money to him. As the senior citizen did

not cave in     demands of the Petitioner, the latter has allegedly

threatened, intimidated and assaulted the senior citizen. On 20 th July

2022, the senior citizen was constrained to report the matter to Wakola

Police, who recorded a NC Report No. 1679 against the Petitioner.

3.3   The senior citizen further affirmed that, the Petitioner is an

alcoholic and has repeatedly abused the senior citizen in filthy language

and assaulted the senior citizen and his daughter-in-law. Reference is

made to an incident of alleged assault and insult on the night

intervening 21st and 22nd February 2023. Again the matter was reported


ARS                                  3/26
                                                           -WP-2206-2025.DOC

to the Wakola Police Station, who recorded NC Report No. 399 of 2023.

The daughter-in-law of the senior citizen has also lodged a Report

against the Petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 354,

504 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”),

3.4   Referring to various acts of verbal, emotional and physical abuse,

the senior citizen has asserted that the continued residence of the

Petitioner in the subject premises is posing danger to the life and limb of

the senior citizen and other family members. Hence, prayers were made

before the Maintenance Tribunal to evict the Petitioner.

3.5   The Petitioner resisted the Application. It was inter alia contended

that the brother and daughter-in-law of the Petitioner with a view to

wreak vengeance have manipulated, fabricated and concocted false

stories and compelled the senior citizen to lodge a false complaint

against the Petitioner before the Maintenance Tribunal.

3.6   On the merits of the matter, it was contended that, the senior

citizen is not the sole owner of the subject premises. The proceeding

before the Maintenance Tribunal was initiated with an oblique motive

to dissuade the Petitioner from pursuing his legal remedies against his

brother. It was, inter alia, contended that the Petitioner had in fact paid

amounts towards maintenance to his parents and incurred expenses

towards their medical care and insurance. The Petitioner has been ready

and willing to maintain both his parents.


ARS                                   4/26
                                                            -WP-2206-2025.DOC

3.7   By an order dated 11th September 2024, the Maintenance

Tribunal was persuaded to allow the Application observing, inter alia,

that the senior citizen had a right to live a normal, peaceful and

dignified life in the subject premises. The acts and conduct of the

Petitioner were impairing the said right of the senior citizen. Thus, in

order to maintain peace and harmony and ensure that the senior citizen

lives a peaceful and dignified life, it was necessary to evict the Petitioner

from the subject premises. Therefore, the Maintenance Tribunal directed

the Petitioner to vacate the subject premises and also gave ancillary

directions to ensure that the senior citizen is not deprived of his right to

live a normal life.

3.8   Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the

Appellate Tribunal.

3.9   By the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal declined to

interfere with the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, finding no

infirmity or error therein.

3.10 Being further aggrieved, the Petitioner has invoked the writ

jurisdiction of this Court.

4.    I have heard Ms Sonal Parab, the learned Counsel for the

Petitioner, Mr Niranjan Mundargi, the learned Counsel for Respondent

No.2, and Mr. Y.D. Patil, the learned AGP, for Respondent No.1-State.




ARS                                    5/26
                                                         -WP-2206-2025.DOC

With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have

perused the material on record.

5.    Ms. Parab, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, mounted multi-

fold challenges to the impugned orders passed by the Tribunals under

the Act, 2007. First and foremost, Ms Parab would urge that the

Application for an order of eviction simpliciter sans a prayer for

maintenance, was itself not maintainable before the Maintenance

Tribunal. There was no assertion in the Application before the

Maintenance Tribunal that the senior citizen was unable to maintain

himself and thus the children be directed to pay maintenance. Instead,

the senior citizen approached the Maintenance Tribunal with a prayer

for eviction simpliciter, which according to Ms. Parab, was not tenable.

6.    Amplifying the aforesaid submission, Ms. Parab would urge that

eviction of the children or relatives is not the object of the Act, 2007.

The provisions contained in the Act, 2007 thus could not be permitted

to be abused to evict the children or relatives without resorting to the

remedies available in law. To buttress this submission, Ms. Parab placed

reliance on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Vimal Dagadu

Kate & Anr Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors 1 and Nitin Rajendra Gupta Vs




1     ASWP No. 882 of 2024 decided on 10th March 2025.
ARS                                  6/26
                                                         -WP-2206-2025.DOC

Deputy Collector, Mumbai and Ors2 and a decision of the Supreme

Court in the case of Samtola Devi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.3

7.    Secondly, Ms. Parab would submit that, on facts, it becomes

abundantly clear that the provisions of the Act, 2007 were weaponized

to evict the Petitioner from the subject premises. In respect of one and

the same incident, the senior citizen lodged a NC Report and, after

more than a month, the daughter-in-law of the senior citizen lodged the

FIR. It was submitted that once a NC Report was lodged the police

could not have registered FIR in respect of the very same incident.

Thus, it betrayed an intention to create record to bolster up the case for

the eviction of the Petitioner.

8.    Thirdly, Ms Parab would urge, the Tribunals under the Act, 2007

were in error in not appreciating the material placed on record by the

Petitioner to demonstrate that he had been making provisions for the

maintenance of his parents,       and taking care of their heath related

requirements. Brushing aside the said material, the Tribunals have

passed the impugned orders giving undue weight to the NC Reports and

the FIR, lodged with an oblique motive.

9.    Ms. Parab further submitted that, though the impugned orders

have been implemented yet they operate as a stigma and scar on the




2     OSWP No. 590 of 2023 decided on 10th April 2024.
3     2025 INSC 404.
ARS                                   7/26
                                                         -WP-2206-2025.DOC

reputation of the Petitioner and, therefore, the impugned orders deserve

to be quashed and set aside.

10.    Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2,

joined the issue by canvassing a submission that it is not necessary that

in every proceeding before the Maintenance Tribunal, the senior citizen

must seek maintenance from the child. In a given case, the child or

relative may make the life of the senior citizen miserable, like the case

at hand, and in such a case it cannot be urged that, the Tribunals under

the Act, 2007 are denuded of the powers to direct the eviction of such

an ungrateful child or relative.   Mr. Mundargi laid emphasis on the

expansive definition of 'maintenance' under Section 2(b) of the Act,

2007. It was submitted that the laudable objects of the Act, 2007 would

be frustrated if the Tribunals are not empowered to direct the eviction

of a child or relative who poses danger to the life and limb of the senior

citizen.

11.    On the merits of the matter, Mr. Mundargi would urge that the

facts are so gross that no other view is possible. The abusive and

aggressive behaviour of the Petitioner is not only documented in the

Reports lodged by the senior citizen and other family members but even

captured in the CCTV footages. Mr. Mundargi laid particular emphasis

on the CCTV footages, copies of which are placed at page Nos. 51 to 55

of the Petition. Those CCTV footages clearly reveal that the Petitioner


ARS                                  8/26
                                                             -WP-2206-2025.DOC

assaulted the senior citizen. It was in respect of that incident, the senior

citizen had lodged the Report, submitted Mr. Mundargi.

12.     The Senior Citizens Act, 2007, primarily and predominantly

deals with the maintenance and welfare of the parents and senior

citizens. ‘Maintenance’ is defined under clause (b), as under :

             “(b)   “maintenance” includes provision for food,
             clothing, residence and medical attendance and
             treatment;”



             “Welfare” is defined under clause (k), as under :

            “(k)    “welfare” means provision for food, health care, recretion

            centres and other amenities necessary for the senior citizens;”

13.   Chapter II of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 subsumes provisions

under the caption “Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens”. Under

Section 4, a senior citizen, including parent, who is unable to maintain

himself from his own earning or out of the property owned by him, is

entitled to make an application under section 5, in case of (i) parent or

grand-parent, against one or more of his children not being a minor; (ii)

a childless senior citizen, against such of his relative referred to in

clause (g) of section 2. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 4 describes

the nature of the obligation of the children or relative to maintain a

senior citizen or parent by emphasizing that the obligation extends to




ARS                                    9/26
                                                          -WP-2206-2025.DOC

the needs of such senior citizen / parent, so that he can lead a normal

life.

14.      Section 5 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 contains provisions in

regard to the application for maintenance. Section 6 provides for the

jurisdiction and procedure to determine such application. The

constitution of the Maintenance Tribunal is provided for under Section

7.      Under Section 8, the Tribunal, subject to the rules that may be

prescribed by the State Government, may follow such summary

procedure as it may deem fit.         Under Section 9, the Tribunal is

empowered to award maintenance at such monthly rate, as the Tribunal

may deem fit, subject to the maximum maintenance allowance as may

be prescribed by the State Government, which shall not exceed

Rs.10,000/- per month. Under Section 12, an option is given to the

senior citizen to seek maintenance under the Act, 2007 or Chapter IX of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The senior citizen may claim

such maintenance under either the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 or Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, but not under both. Section 15 provides for

constitution of Appellate Tribunal. Appeals are provided under Section

16 before the Appellate Tribunal.

15.      Chapter III deals with the establishment of old age homes.

Provisions for medical care of senior citizens are envisaged in Chapter

IV. Chapter V is dedicated towards the protection of life and property


ARS                                   10/26
                                                           -WP-2206-2025.DOC

of senior citizens. Section 23, in particular, empowers the Tribunal to

declare the transfer of property by way of gift or otherwise, made by the

senior citizen, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide

the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor, void if

such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical

needs. Section 27 of the Act, 2007 bars the jurisdiction of the civil court

in respect of any matters to which any provisions of the said Act apply.

Section 3 gives overriding effect to the provisions of Act, 2007 over the

provisions of any other enactment or instrument.

16.   At this juncture, the ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons’ of the

Senior Citizens Act, 2007, deserves to be noted. It reads as under :

         “Statement of Objects and Reasons”
         Traditional norms and values of the Indian society laid
         stress on providing care for the elderly. However, due to
         withering of the joint family system, a large number of
         elderly are not being looked after by their family.
         Consequently, many older persons, particularly widowed
         women are now forced to spend their twilight years all
         alone and are exposed to emotional neglect and to lack of
         physical and financial support. This clearly reveals that
         ageing has become a major social challenge and there is a
         need to give more attention to the care and protection fo
         the older persons.      Though the parents can claim
         maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
         the procedure is both time-consuming as well as expensive.
         Hence, there is need to have simple, inexpensive and
         speedy provisions to claim maintenance for parents.”

ARS                                   11/26
                                                         -WP-2206-2025.DOC

17.     A conjoint reading of the provisions contained in the Act, 2007

as a whole, in the light of the Statement of Objects and Reasons, makes

the intent of the Legislature explicitly clear. The Parliament intended to

address the alarming situation caused by the neglect and harassment of

the parents and senior citizens in the evening of their life.      Senior

Citizens were found to be deserted and deprived of the basic physical

necessities, medical care and amenities which are required the most in

the advanced age. Many elderly persons, particularly widowed women,

were found to have been forced to spend their twilight years all alone,

and were exposed to emotional neglect and want of physical and

financial support. This mischief was sought to be addressed by the

Parliament by providing a simple, inexpensive and speedy mechanism to

claim   maintenance    and    also   by   making    provisions   for   the

institutionalized care of the senior citizens in old age homes, medical

support and, most importantly, the protection of life and property of the

senior citizens.   The Statement of Objects and Reasons specifically

records that, though under the provisions of the Code, 1973, parents

can claim maintenance, the procedure was both time consuming as well

as expensive.

18.     The capacious breadth of the provisions of the Act, 2007 leaves

no manner of doubt that it is a beneficial legislation, enacted to advance

the object of care and protection of the senior citizens. Thus, while


ARS                                  12/26
                                                         -WP-2206-2025.DOC

interpreting the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, it is

imperative to adopt tools of interpretation which are required to be

applied when interpreting a beneficial piece of legislation. The cardinal

principle is that the beneficial legislation must receive liberal

construction in consonance with the objectives such legislation seeks to

achieve. The interpretative process must be attuned to the purposive

construction informed by the legislative object. In a given case, if two

views are plausible, the Court must lean in favour of an interpretation

which favours the beneficiaries rather than one which stultifies object of

the beneficial legislation.

19.   On the aforesaid touchstone the submission of Ms Parab that an

Application for eviction simpliciter sans a prayer for maintenance is not

maintainable, deserves to be appreciated.

20. It may be apposite to notice the judgment of the Supreme Court

in the case of Samtola Devi (supra) on which reliance was placed by Ms

Parab. In the said case, the parents sought to evict their sons from the

house premises, which the father claimed that it was his self-acquired

property. The Supreme Court in the backdrop of the facts that emerged,

namely, there was no complaint or any material on record to indicate

that the son, after the order was passed by the Tribunal, had in any

manner humiliated his parents or interfered with the mother's living,

the son had been paying maintenance as directed by the Family Court


ARS                                  13/26
                                                          -WP-2206-2025.DOC

observed that, if the son had been living in a small portion of the

house, owned by his father, in which he had no share and was

continuing with the family business from the shop on the ground floor

without interfering with the life of the others, it did not appear to be

prudent to order his eviction, as after all, being a son, he also had an

implied licence to live therein.

21.   In that context, the Supreme Court observed that the provisions

of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere specifically provide for drawing

proceeding for eviction of persons from any premises owned by or

belonging to a senior person. It is only on account of the observations

made by the Supreme Court in the case of S. Vanitha v/s. Deputy

Commissioner, and Ors,4 that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act

may also order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the

protection of the senior citizens. Referring to the decision in the case of

Urmila Dixit vs Sunil Sharan Dixit and ors, 5 the Supreme Court clarified

in that case as well, the Supreme Court had only held that, in a given

case, the Tribunal, “may order” eviction but it is not necessary and

mandatory to pass an order of eviction in every case. In the case of

Samtola Devei (supra), the Supreme Court held, the Appellate Tribunal

had not recorded any reason necessitating the eviction of the

appellant's son, nor that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it

4     (2021) 15 SCC 730
5     (2025) 2 SCC 787.
ARS                                  14/26
                                                              -WP-2206-2025.DOC

was expedient to order eviction to ensure the protection of the senior

citizen.

22.   In the case of Jitendra Gorakh Megh v/s. Additional Collector and

Anr.6, the Division Bench of this Court considered the following

question:

             “Whether an eviction order can be passed under the
             Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
             Citizens Act, 2007 without any claim towards
             maintenance being made by the senior citizen ?

23.   After adverting to the facts of the case, the Statement of Objects

and Reasons, key provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the

judicial precedents, including the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of Smt. S. Vanitha (supra) and judgments of this Court in the cases

of Ranjana Rajkumar Makharia V/s. Mayadevi Subhkaran Makharia 7,

Ritika Prashant Jasani V/s. Anjana Niranjan Jasani 8 and Shweta Shetty

V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors.9, the Division Bench enunciated,

inter alia, as under :

      “20.   Section 4 of the Act contains provisions dealing with
      the maintenance of parents and senior citizens. It prescribes
      that a senior citizen who is unable to maintain himself from
      his own earnings or from property owned by him, is entitled
      to make an application for maintenance under Section 5 of

6     OSWP(L) No.31614 of 2025 dated 8 Dec. 2025
7     2020(3) Mh.L.J. 587
8     2021 SCC Online Bom 1802
9     2021 SCC Online Bom 4575
ARS                                   15/26
                                                                -WP-2206-2025.DOC

      the Act. The said section further prescribes that the obligation
      of children to maintain the senior citizen extends to the needs
      of such senior citizen so that he may lead a normal life.
      Section 5 contains provisions relating to the application
      which the senior citizen can make for maintenance. Sub-
      section (2) enables the Tribunal to order monthly allowance
      to be paid to the senior citizen towards interim maintenance.
      In these circumstances, when the senior citizen has made no
      claim for maintenance, we fail to see how the said application
      which has been filed by the senior citizen under section 5(2)
      of the Act, is maintainable, in the first place. This position
      appears to have been completely overlooked, both in the
      eviction order and also in the appellate order.
      ……
      24.    The Act is a beneficial statute intended to safeguard
      the vulnerable (senior citizen), but it cannot be (mis) used by
      the senior citizen as a tool for summary eviction without the
      fulfilment of statutory requirements. In the present case, we
      find   that   the   said   application   does   not   satisfy   the
      requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and is therefore
      not maintainable. Accordingly, the eviction order could not
      have been passed by the Tribunal and upheld by the Appellate
      Tribunal, vide the appellate order. The senior citizen has not
      claimed any maintenance from the Petitioner and the order of
      eviction is not in furtherance thereof. Eviction, as also held in
      S. Vanitha (supra) would be an incident of the enforcement of
      the right to maintenance and protection which should be
      granted only after adverting to the competing claims of both
      parties in dispute. This has admittedly not been done in the
      appellate order or in eviction order (which it confirms).
      25. In fact, the senior citizen is financially well-to-do and
      owns several other immovable properties, both residential

ARS                                      16/26
                                                             -WP-2206-2025.DOC

      and commercial and instead, the record reveals that the
      Petitioner (if evicted from the subject premises) would not
      have any other roof over his head. This is not disputed by the
      senior citizen in the said application who in-fact asserts that
      the Petitioner has been unemployed for several years. In such
      circumstances, it was incumbent on the Tribunal and the
      Appellate Tribunal to have considered these material factors
      before passing the eviction and appellate orders. This has
      admittedly not been done. Instead, the eviction order accepts
      all the averments made in the said application and proceeds
      to hold that since the subject premises belong to the senior
      citizen and he needs to reside therein since he travels
      frequently for medical treatment, the Petitioner is required to
      be evicted therefrom.

24. In the light of the aforesaid enunciation of law albeit in the facts

of the respective cases, it is pertinent to note, the expansive and wide

definition of "maintenance" and the obligation of children and relatives,

assume critical salience. If a senior citizen is deprived of the use and

occupation of his home, in the exercise of all the incidents of

ownership, and made to take refuge in another premises, can it be said

that the obligation of the child/relative, who is alleged to have been

instrumental for bringing about the circumstances rendering it

impracticable to occupy his own home to maintain the senior citizen is

discharged? Would it not deprive the senior citizen of the right of the

protection of the property ? or Would it still be incumbent upon the

senior citizen to first seek maintenance from such child/relative who


ARS                                    17/26
                                                        -WP-2206-2025.DOC

has allegedly made it impossible for the senior citizen to occupy his

own home ? are the questions that may crop up.

25. A purposive interpretation of the provisions of the Senior Citizens

Act, 2007 would provide a legitimate answer. In a situation of the

present nature, can it not be said that the senior citizen would be

enforcing his right to live a normal life?           The definition of

"maintenance", which includes residence, has both positive and

negative connotations. In the positive form, there is an obligation on

the child/relative to provide residence to the parent/senior citizen in

case the parent/senior citizen does not hold the property as defined

under Section 2(f) of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. In the negative

sense, there is an obligation on the child/relative not to deprive a

senior citizen of his own residence. Therefore, when the senior citizen

approaches the Tribunal seeking eviction of the child/relative who has

deprived the senior citizen of his property either by forcing himself or

by making the life of the senior citizen miserable by acts of omission or

commission, the prayer still partakes the character of enforcing the

obligation of the child/relative to allow the senior citizen to live a

normal life.

26. In the case of Shweta Shetty (supra), a Division Bench of this

Court negatived a somewhat similar challenge to the orders of the

Maintenance Tribunal. In that case, the senior citizen was seeking to

ARS                                 18/26
                                                              -WP-2206-2025.DOC

evict from his flat, one of the daughters who had forced herself upon

the senior citizen.       A submission was canvassed on behalf of the

daughter that it was impermissible under the scheme of the Senior

Citizens Act, 2007 to seek eviction of a person because under Section 5

only an application for maintenance could be entertained by the

Tribunal and, thus, the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in directing

eviction of the daughter. After adverting to the Division Bench

judgment of this Court in the case of Ritika Jasani (supra), the Division

Bench repelled the contentions on behalf of the daughter in the

following terms :

      “9.    As to the jurisdictional question we do not believe the
      point is well taken. The definition of maintenance in clause
      2(b) reads thus :
      “(b)   “maintenance” includes provision for food, clothing,
      residence and medical attendance and treatment;”
      10.    Clearly it includes residence; and this means residence
      of the senior citizen.
      12.    In Jasani, therefore, the claim of the appellant was that
      the house was a ‘shared household’, i.e. that she had a legally
      definable right in the property itself. That is not the case
      before us at all, where Shweta accepts that she has no right in
      the flat in question. The mere use of the word ‘eviction’ is not
      by itself determinative. To constitute eviction, or to invoke
      any prohibition against eviction, it must be shown that some
      legally enforceable civil right of the appellant in the property
      itself has been determined and that the appellant has been
      denied that right. Removal of a person with no right in the


ARS                                    19/26
                                                                -WP-2206-2025.DOC

      premises is not eviction so as to attract any such prohibition.
      After all, as Jasani notes, the statutory intent is to protect
      senior citizens. It is not to foist on senior citizens an
      imaginary claim over their own property where the claimant
      has no such right to begin with. The statutory intent is not to
      limit the rights of senior citizens, but exactly the reverse.”
                                          (emphasis supplied)


27.   In the case of Shweta Shetty (supra), the Division Bench also

referred to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in

Dattatrey Shivaji Mane V/s Lilabai Shivaji Mane 10, wherein it was

enunciated that Section 4 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be

read in isolation but has to be read with Section 23 and also Sections

2(b), (d) and (f) of the said Act, 2007, and the mother cannot be

restrained from recovering exclusive possession from her son or other

family member for the purpose of generating income from the said

premises or to lead a normal life.

28. In the case of Sunny Paul V/s. State of NCT of Delhi11, a Division

Bench of the Delhi High Court has enunciated that, the Senior Citizens

Act, 2007 being a social legislation and the same requires to be given

liberal interpretation to achieve the mandate of the Act of 2007 i.e. for

the welfare of the parents and senior citizens and for the protection of

their life and property, there is no doubt that the Tribunal does have the

jurisdiction to direct vacation by the children of any property in which
10    (2018) 6 Mah LJ 681.
11    2018 scc Online Del 11640
ARS                                     20/26
                                                            -WP-2206-2025.DOC

the senior citizen has a right of residence/possession.

29.    In Shweta Shetty (supra), the Division Bench also followed the

Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sunny

Paul V/s. State of NCT of Delhi12, and observed with reference to the

enunciation of law in Dattatrey Shivaji Mane V/s. Lilabai shivaji Mane 13

and Sunny Paul (supra), as under :

      “We entirely endorse the views of the learned Single Judge and
      accept them as our own. We are also fully in agreement with the
      views of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of
      Sunny Paul (supra), a most careful and elaborate judgment that
      includes what appears to us to be a comprehensive overview of the
      jurisprudence.”
30.   In the case of Dinesh Bhanudas Chandanshive Vs The State of

Maharashtra and Ors14, which again arose out of the struggle of a

mother, who was illegally ousted from her own abode, to take back the

same from her son, the Division Bench after following the decision in

the case of Shweta Shetty (supra), rejected the challenge to the order

passed by the Maintenance Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal

had no jurisdiction to order eviction. It was, inter alia, exposited that,

during the lifetime of the parents, children cannot assert any legal right

whatsoever in respect of the property of their parents claiming exclusive

ownership or possession of the parents property. The mother certainly


12    2018 SCC Online Del 11640
13    (2018) 6 Mah. L
14    2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 48.
ARS                                   21/26
                                                         -WP-2206-2025.DOC

deserves to be maintained from her own tenement. The Petitioner has

no legal right whatsoever to oust the mother from her tenement so as to

make her roofless and/or deprive maintenance from her tenement.

31.   Another perspective through the prism of which the matter can be

looked at is, the power conferred on the Tribunal under Section 23 of

the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. A plain reading of Section 23 indicates

that the Tribunal is conferred with the authority to declare a transfer,

made by the senior citizen in favour of the transferee,      void if the

transferee refuses or fails to provide basic amenities and physical needs

to the transferor, post transfer. The power to declare a registered

instrument inter vivos void and, resultantly, put the transferee – senior

citizen in possession of the property for failure of the condition

subsequent is, in a sense, drastic.

32.   It is true, the measure to declare a transfer void is subsumed

under the Chapter of ‘Protection of life and property of senior citizen’.

However, if the provisions of the Act, are read as a whole, chapter by

chapter, section by section and word by word; which is the well-

established rule of interpretation, as recognised by the Supreme Court

in the case of Reserve Bank of India V/s. Peerless General Finance and

Investment Co. Ltd. and Ors. 15, then if the Tribunal is empowered to

declare a transfer, which has already been effected by an instrument

inter vivos void, a fortiori the Tribunal expressing its power to enforce
15    (1987) 1 SCC 424.
ARS                                   22/26
                                                            -WP-2206-2025.DOC

the right of maintenance of a senior citizen and the corresponding

obligation of the child/relative would have the authority to order the

eviction of the child/relative who has unjustifiably deprived the senior

citizen of the use and occupation of her own property, or created an

atmosphere which renders it impossible for the senior citizen to occupy

his own property.

33.   The decisions in the cases of Jitendera Megh (supra) and Samtola

Devi (supra) are required to be considered in the backdrop of the

aforesaid legal position which fairly emerges. From the perusal of the

decision in the case of Jitendera Megh (supra), it becomes abundantly

clear that the said decision was rendered in the peculiar facts as noted

in the observations of the Division Bench (extracted above). Likewise,

the decision in the case of Samtola Devi (supra) also turned on its own

facts. It may not be thus permissible to consider the import of the

decisions in the cases of Jitendera Megh (supra) and Samtola Devi

(supra), de hors the peculiar facts of those cases.

34.    The upshot of the aforesaid consideration that it cannot be laid

down as an immutable and absolute rule of law that an application for

eviction   simpliciter,   sans   the   prayer   for   maintenance,   is   not

maintainable, even when the senior citizen claims that he has been

deprived of her property unlawfully or that he requires the property to

live a normal, dignified and peaceful life.


ARS                                    23/26
                                                         -WP-2206-2025.DOC

35.   Reverting to the facts of the case at hand, it appears that, the

allegations made against the Petitioner by the senior citizen find

support in the contemporaneous documents. The senior citizen had

filed a report leading to registration of a non cognizable case on 20 th

July 2022 to the effect that the Petitioner was raking up quarrels with

the senior citizen, in order to coerce him to sell his properties and pay

the money to the Petitioner.    On 10 th July 2022, the Petitioner had

abused the senior citizen on the said count.

36.   In regard to the incident of 21 st February 2023, which led to

registration of NCR No. 399 of 2023, the senior citizen reported that the

Petitioner returned home at the dead of the night under the influence of

liquor and barged into the house, abused the senior citizen and his

daughter-in-law. It is pertinent to note that, the images captured in the

CCTV clearly show that the Petitioner assaulted the senior citizen.

Further corroboration is found in the medical examination of the senior

citizen. The Medico Legal Papers record that the history of assault by

the son was narrated by the senior citizen.

37.   Ms Parab attempted to salvage the position by canvassing a

submission that in 13 long years only two NC Reports were lodged. The

submission loses sight of the fact that generally parents do not take

recourse to the law enforcement agencies against their children. It is

only after all the options are exhausted that, by way of last resort, the


ARS                                 24/26
                                                          -WP-2206-2025.DOC

matter is reported to the police. In the case at hand, evidently things

came to such a pass that the senior citizen was required to approach the

law enforcement agencies on more than one occasion to protect his life

and limb. The images in the CCTV footages are distressing, to say the

least. The Tribunals were thus justified in drawing an inference that to

allow the senior citizen to live a normal, peaceful and dignified life, it

was necessary to evict the Petitioner from the subject premises.

38.   Indeed, there might have been disputes among the siblings,

steming out of the rival claims over properties. However, that does not

justify the conduct attributed to the Petitioner.    The conduct of the

Petitioner, as borne out by the record, is reprehensible. The behaviour of

the Peteitoenr was such that the right of the senior citizen to live a

normal peaceful and dignified life was seriouisly jeopardised.

39.   For the foregoing reasons, this Court in exercise of its supervisory

jurisdiction does not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the

impugned orders, especially after the orders have been implemented

and peace and normalcy in the life of the senior citizen have been

restored.

40.   The Petition, therefore deserves to be dismissed.

41.   Hence, the following order:




ARS                                  25/26
                                                       -WP-2206-2025.DOC

                              :ORDER:

(i)    Petition stands dismissed.

(ii)   Rule discharged.

No costs.

                                            [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




ARS                                 26/26