Bombay High Court
VIJAY GOVARDHANDAS RATHOD AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- ADVAIT M SETHNA
Holding
The Court held that the writ petition contained no surviving claim and therefore dismissed it.
Summary
The petitioners sought relief from an order dated 11 March 2026 issued by the Senior Citizen Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging imminent eviction from a property. The petition raised urgency, but the respondents pointed out that a related application had been filed on 7 April 2026 and was scheduled for hearing on 28 May 2026, a fact unknown to the petitioners. The court examined whether the petitioners, at least one of whom is a senior citizen, could file a statutory appeal under Section 16 of the Act and whether any limitation issues would arise. It clarified that the statutory appeal is available and that the Tribunal would decide on maintainability and limitation, but the High Court would not opine on the merits. Consequently, the court found that no issue remained for adjudication in the writ petition and ordered its disposal.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to file a statutory appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 against the Tribunal's order.
- Whether the appeal is maintainable given the senior‑citizen status of the parties.
- Whether the limitation period, if raised, would bar the appeal.
Subjects
- Senior citizen
- Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act
- Statutory appeal
- Limitation
- Eviction
- Writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
1 5-WP-6544-2026 (C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6544 OF 2026
Vijay Govardhandas Rathod And Anr ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...Respondents
--------------------------------------------
Adv. Dhavan Shah, a/w Vishal Babar, i/b Sanjay Dhadan, for the Petitioners.
Adv. Ashwini A. Purav, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – State.
Adv. Alok Mishra, a/w Yoesh Kokare, Juilee Modak, for Respondent No. 3.
--------------------------------------------
CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATED : 13 MAY 2026
P.C.:- (VACATION COURT)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Petition primarily challenges the order dated 11 March 2026
passed by the Senior Citizen Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and
Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“the said Act” for short).
3. According to the Petitioner, there is extreme urgency in the matter, as,
if this Petition is not entertained, the Petitioners before this Court may suffer
eviction from the subject property pursuant to the Impugned Order dated 11
March 2026.
Mayur 1/3
2 5-WP-6544-2026 (C).doc
4. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 has placed on record a
communication dated 30 April 2026 addressed by the Registry of the
Tribunal, inter alia, to Respondent No. 3. According to this communication,
the Petitioner had preferred certain Application dated 7 April 2026. The
hearing of the said Application is scheduled on 28 May 2026 at 11.30 a.m., as
clearly indicated in the communication dated 30 April 2026. This fact has
not been disclosed in the proceedings filed before this Court. It appears that
learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner was also not aware of the said
communication.
5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 has submitted that
the Applications referred to in the said communication relate to the same
subject property.
6. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the parties submit that, under
Section 16 of the said Act, a statutory appeal is provided to the Appellate
Tribunal against an order passed by the Tribunal, which in the present case
would be the order dated 11 March 2026.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has expressed an apprehension that
the appeal may not be permitted to be filed on the ground that the parties are
not senior citizens. Factually, this does not appear to be a correct submission,
inasmuch as Petitioner No. 1 is clearly a senior citizen. Be that as it may, the
Mayur 2/3
3 5-WP-6544-2026 (C).doc
Petitioners may institute such statutory appeal under the said provision before
the Appellate Tribunal, which shall consider the same on its own merits and
in accordance with law, including the issue of maintainability of such appeal.
8. It is made clear that all rights and contentions of the parties are
expressly kept open, without this Court expressing any opinion on the merits
of the Petition.
9. The issue of limitation, if raised, shall also be appropriately decided by
the Tribunal at the relevant stage and in accordance with law.
10. In view of the above, nothing survives in the present Petition, and the
same is accordingly Disposed Of.
11. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]
Mayur 3/3
Checking your session…