Case at a Glance
An elderly father who had let his son’s family live in his self-acquired house was later forced out. The Sub-Divisional Officer under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ordered the son to vacate and pay ₹3,000 a month, but the Appellate Authority set this aside, holding it had no power to evict a son, and only directed him to give the father one room. The Aurangabad Bench quashed the appellate order, held that a senior citizen can seek eviction under the Act, restored the original order and directed the son to vacate within a month, with ₹20,000 costs.
The petitioner owns a self-acquired house in Dondaicha, Dhule district. Out of affection, he allowed his son to live there with his family. Disputes arose and, according to the father, he was compelled to leave his own house. He applied under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 for possession and financial support. By order dated 15 September 2023, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shirpur directed the son to hand over possession within one month and pay ₹3,000 per month, and directed the Additional Tahsildar to enforce possession if he did not comply.
On appeal, the Appellate Authority, by a common order dated 8 May 2024, set aside the possession direction on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to evict a son, directed the son instead to provide one well-equipped room to the father, and denied the other reliefs including maintenance. The son did not challenge the appellate order; the father did. Before the High Court, the son argued that he was always willing to give a room and money, that the petition was instigated by other family members, and that he had his own family to house, relying on Anjana Niranjan Jasani, Malkeet Singh Chouhan and S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, (2020) 12 SC CK 0034. The judgment header records the father’s age as 85, while paragraph 3 says 80.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does the authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 have power to order a son to vacate his parent’s self-acquired house, and was the Appellate Authority right to replace eviction with a direction to give the father one room?
Eviction under the 2007 Act — a last resort, but available
The Court noted it was undisputed that the house was the father’s self-acquired property and that the son had no lawful right to occupy it; the Appellate Authority had disturbed the first authority’s finding only on the question of jurisdiction. Following the Bombay High Court’s decision in Chandiram Anandram Hemnani v. Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal, (2025) 06 BOM CK 0117, the Court held that “there is no legal basis for the claim of the respondent - son to reside in the petitioner’s house.” It also relied on the Supreme Court’s order in Ravi Kant Gupta, recognising that a senior citizen can seek eviction under the Act where its provisions are violated, and held that the Appellate Authority erred in holding otherwise.
On the son’s defence, the Court said his conduct “cannot be overlooked” and that “In no way he can be permitted to frustrate the object of Act of 2007.” As to his family’s housing needs, it observed: “It is for the respondent son, who himself is also a businessman to find out adequate accommodation.” It distinguished Anjana Niranjan Jasani (a house never jointly shared), Malkeet Singh Chouhan (in light of Chandiram) and S. Vanitha on facts, accepting that eviction is a last recourse but finding it warranted here. It also held that maintenance had been wrongly cancelled, since the son had deprived his father of his own property, and refused the son’s request to stay the judgment.
What the Court Actually Held
- An authority under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can direct eviction of a son from a parent’s self-acquired house; the Appellate Authority erred in holding it had no jurisdiction.
- The appellate order dated 8 May 2024 was quashed and the SDO’s order dated 15 September 2023 (possession plus ₹3,000 per month) was restored.
- The son must vacate and hand over the house within one month, failing which the Additional Tahsildar, Dondaicha must deliver possession to the father within seven days thereafter and file a compliance report with the Registrar (Judicial).
- The petition was allowed with ₹20,000 costs, recoverable from the son as arrears of land revenue if not deposited within four weeks; the son’s request for stay was rejected.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It confirms in Maharashtra that the 2007 Act’s tribunals can order eviction of children who make life difficult for parents in their own property.
- It rejects the half-way solution of giving the parent ‘one room’ in his own house where the child has no right to stay.
- Directions to the Tahsildar and a compliance report make the order enforceable in practice.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Senior Citizens
- If you own the house and a child forces you out, you can apply to the Maintenance Tribunal for eviction and maintenance under the 2007 Act.
- A self-acquired house gives the child no legal right of residence merely because you allowed them to stay.
- Seek a direction to the revenue officer to enforce possession if the order is not obeyed.
For Counsel
- Cite Chandiram Anandram Hemnani and the Supreme Court’s order in Ravi Kant Gupta on the power to evict.
- Establish self-acquisition clearly; it was undisputed here and decisive.
- Be ready to distinguish S. Vanitha and Anjana Jasani on facts, and to show why eviction is the last resort in the case.
Key Takeaways
- Senior Citizens Act tribunals in Maharashtra can order a son out of his father’s self-acquired house.
- A son’s own family needs do not create a right to stay in the father’s property.
- Maintenance cancelled by the appellate authority was restored.
- Costs of ₹20,000 and a one-month deadline were imposed, with the stay request refused.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a father evict his son under the Senior Citizens Act in Maharashtra?
Yes. In this case the Bombay High Court held that the authority under the 2007 Act has power to direct eviction of a son from the father’s self-acquired house, and ordered the son to vacate within one month.
Is giving the parent one room in the house enough?
Not here. The Court set aside the appellate direction to give the father one room and restored the original order for possession.
What happens if the son does not vacate?
The Additional Tahsildar, Dondaicha must hand over possession to the father within seven days after the one-month period and file a compliance report with the High Court Registry.
Conclusion
The ruling gives practical force to the protective purpose of the 2007 Act. Where a parent’s own self-acquired house is at stake and the child’s conduct has driven the parent out, eviction — though a last resort — is within the tribunal’s power.
Practical takeaway: Elderly parents in such situations should apply to the Maintenance Tribunal for both possession and maintenance, and ask for an enforcement direction to the local revenue officer.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com