The Bombay High Court has clarified that a senior citizen cannot invoke the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to recover possession of premises from another senior citizen. The court held that such disputes should be resolved in a civil court rather than by a tribunal under the Act.
The ruling came in response to a petition challenging an order issued by the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizen Tribunal. The tribunal had directed the petitioners to vacate the premises in favor of respondent no. 2, another senior citizen. Justice Sandeep V. Marne, presiding over the case, emphasized that such cases fall outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Quashes Maharashtra GR on Sugarcane FRP, Protecting Farmers' Rights
"This clearly appears to be proceedings for recovery of possession of the first-floor premises, which in my view, cannot be filed by invoking the provisions of the Act," Justice Marne observed.
The court further noted that petitioner no. 1, the sister of respondent no. 2, had no legal obligation to maintain her sibling. Since the Act primarily deals with maintenance and welfare and not property disputes, the tribunal was not the appropriate authority to adjudicate on such matters.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose when respondent no. 2, who resides on the ground floor of a building, claimed that her sister (petitioner no. 1) and another petitioner had encroached upon the first floor. Consequently, she sought an order from the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizen Tribunal for their eviction.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Questions State on Delay in Response to PIL on Denotified Tribes
The tribunal ruled in favor of respondent no. 2, directing the petitioners to vacate the premises. However, the petitioners challenged this decision in the Bombay High Court, arguing that the tribunal lacked the authority to decide on property possession issues.
Court's Key Observations
Justice Marne pointed out that the Act is designed to provide maintenance and support for senior citizens rather than to resolve property disputes. He emphasized that issues concerning ownership and possession should be determined by a civil court, not by the tribunal.
"Jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal cannot be invoked by one senior citizen to recover possession of premises from another senior citizen," the court noted.
Additionally, the court observed that the tribunal’s order amounted to a "gross abuse of jurisdiction" since it sought to resolve a property dispute under a law that does not provide for such relief.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Upholds Double Toll Fees for Non-FASTag Vehicles
The High Court ruled that the tribunal's order must be set aside. However, it clarified that respondent no. 2 was free to initiate appropriate legal proceedings in a civil court if she wished to seek possession of the property.
"Respondent no. 2 would be at liberty to initiate such proceedings as would be maintainable for recovery of possession of first-floor premises from the petitioners," the court stated.
Furthermore, the court ensured that while any new proceedings were initiated, the petitioners should not harass or inconvenience respondent no. 2, who is also a senior citizen.
The court also addressed concerns regarding unpaid utility bills for the first-floor premises. The petitioners agreed to clear all dues, including electricity and water charges, as part of their occupation of the property.
Case title: Vimal Dagadu Kate & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (Writ Petition No.882 Of 2024)
