The Bombay High Court recently ruled that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, cannot be applied in property disputes between senior citizens.
A single Bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne observed,
“The proceedings appear to my mind in the nature of suit for recovery of possession of first floor premises, which could not have been entertained and decided by the Tribunal... Jurisdiction of Maintenance Tribunal cannot be invoked by one senior citizen to recover possession of premises from another senior citizen.”
The Bombay High Court recently ruled that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, cannot be used to settle property disputes between senior citizens.
The Court was hearing a plea by Vimal Dagadu Kate and her family, who challenged an October 2023 order by a tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act. The tribunal had directed them to vacate the first floor of a slum structure, following a complaint by Kate’s younger sister, who alleged encroachment while she resided on the ground floor.
Kate’s counsel argued that the dispute was purely related to property possession and should have been addressed by a civil court rather than the tribunal. However, her sister’s counsel maintained that the tribunal had jurisdiction under the Senior Citizens Act to decide the matter.
The High Court sided with the petitioners, clarifying that the tribunal constituted under the Act was not the appropriate forum for property disputes. Justice Marne specifically noted that the case centered on possession of premises, which fell outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The Court further emphasized that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction in the matter, stating, “To make the case of Respondent No. 2 worse, Petitioner No. 1 is her sister and also a senior citizen. Jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal cannot be invoked by one senior citizen to recover possession of premises from another senior citizen.”
The Court further clarified that since Kate was not obligated to maintain her sister, the tribunal had no authority to order her eviction.
“Petitioner No.1 is admittedly not supposed to maintain Respondent No.2. Therefore, jurisdiction of the Tribunal could not have been invoked to seek recovery of possession of first floor premises from the Petitioners," it said.
The Court set aside the tribunal’s order, allowing the petitioners to retain possession of the premises.
However, it clarified that Kate’s sister could seek possession of the property through appropriate legal proceedings in a civil court. The Court also directed the petitioners to clear any outstanding utility charges and prohibited them from harassing the respondent.
Additionally, it ruled that the time spent litigating before the tribunal would not be counted toward the limitation period for filing a civil suit.
Advocates Santosh S. Jagtap and Amar K. Shilwant represented the petitioner, Vimal Dagadu Kate.
Additional Government Pleader S. D. Rayrikar appeared for the State.
Advocate Mahesh H. Chandanshiv represented the respondent sister.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy