Maintenance Tribunal ordered sons to vacate residential property owned by father: Here’s why Bombay High Court quashed order

In a significant ruling interpreting the scope of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the Bombay High Court has held that not every dispute between a senior citizen and their children will fall within the ambit of the Act. The Court underlined that the essential requirement to invoke the Act is the proof that the senior citizen cannot maintain himself using his own income or assets, otherwise, the eviction order cannot be upheld.The judgment was delivered by Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan in Prakash Krishna Gamare & Anr v. Krishna Ganpat Gamre & Anr, where the Court quashed a Maintenance Tribunal order directing two sons to vacate a residential property owned by their father.Background and Tribunal ProceedingsThe case arose from an order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal on 02.02.2024, directing the petitioners, who were the sons of the respondent father, to vacate a slum unit located at Liberty Garden, Malad. The property stood in the name of the father, who had invoked the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act seeking relief against his sons before the Tribunal.The Tribunal, while considering the application, examined the father’s financial condition and recorded that he was receiving pension income and had not adequately established his inability to maintain himself. On this basis, the Tribunal declined to grant maintenance. However, despite declining maintenance, the Tribunal proceeded to order eviction of the sons from the property.Aggrieved by this eviction direction, the sons approached the High Court.Arguments of Sons Before High Court.The sons argued that a plain reading of the Tribunal’s order itself showed that the father had been held not entitled to maintenance under Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. They submitted that inability to maintain oneself is a foundational jurisdictional fact for invoking the provisions of the Act. Once the Tribunal had concluded that such requirement was not satisfied, the eviction order could not be sustained.The sons also submitted that the father was financially independent and was getting about Rs.40,000/- a month as a pension which was far above what would have been the maximum maintenance of Rs.10,000/- as envisaged in the Act. It was argued that this finding of financial independence had attained finality since the father had not challenged it.It was also argued that the father was residing separately with his second wife and had access to alternate accommodation. Therefore, eviction from the Liberty Garden property was neither necessary nor justified.The sons further argued that Section 23 of the Act allowing eviction in some situations is applicable only where a transfer of property has been made under a condition of maintenance. Because the property under consideration was still in the name of the father and had not been transferred to them, the Tribunal had no power to evict them in this provision. They fairly acknowledged that the property stood in the father’s name but argued that eviction could only be sought through appropriate civil proceedings and not through summary proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act.The sons also contended that the Maintenance Tribunal had failed to follow the procedural requirements under the Maharashtra Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2010. They submitted that the Tribunal was required to provide parties an opportunity to lead evidence, including examination of witnesses, before passing orders affecting property rights. Failure to follow this procedure rendered the eviction order unsustainable.Father’s ArgumentsOpposing the petition, the father claimed that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act is a beneficial legislation which must be interpreted liberally in order to safeguard the rights and dignity of the senior citizens. He argued that the idea of maintenance in the Act does not merely refer to the financial support, but also to emotional support and entitlement to live with dignity.The father further argued that as the owner of the property, he was entitled to derive income from it for his maintenance. It was submitted that the sons were occupying and exploiting the property and preventing him from exercising his ownership rights. It was also submitted that the father’s entitlement under the Act included the right to peaceful enjoyment of his property and the power to seek eviction of occupants where necessary to secure his welfare.Furthermore, the father claimed that he was on pension but much of the amount was used in rent and other expenses; therefore, he deserved relief under the Act. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents emphasizing liberal and purposive interpretation of welfare legislation.Court’s Examination and FindingsThe High Court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory framework, particularly Sections 4, 5, 9, and 23 of the Act.The Court observed that, Section 4 establishes a right to maintenance in cases when a senior citizen cannot maintain himself using his own income or property. The Court explained that this requirement is a jurisdictional fact, and unless it is established, the Tribunal cannot exercise powers under the Act.The Court observed:“Under Section 4, the jurisdictional fact necessary to be demonstrated is that the senior citizen should be unable to maintain himself from his own earnings and earnings out of the property owned by him.”The Court also observed that this principle is enhanced by Section 9 which restricts the maintenance relief to cases that imply incapacity to maintain himself.The High Court held that the Tribunal’s findings were internally inconsistent. On one hand, the Tribunal had concluded that the father was not entitled to maintenance due to lack of proof of financial incapacity. On the other hand, it granted eviction relief under the same statutory framework. The Court held that such an approach was legally unsustainable.The Court observed:“The Maintenance Tribunal has positively reached a conclusion that it would not be appropriate to grant maintenance to the Father… All of these facets… undermine the case for an intervention for vacating a residential unit that the Father is in fact not living in.”The High Court held that eviction under the Act cannot be granted independently of maintenance entitlement.The Court further pointed out that the Senior Citizens Act is not applicable in the automatic application in every family conflict involving the senior citizens. The Court explained that the Act is a beneficial legislation but applies only when its statutory conditions are satisfied.The Court observed:“Every conflict between a senior citizen and his offspring would not attract the jurisdiction of the Act.”It further held:“If the jurisdictional fact is not made out, it would necessarily follow that the remedies under the Act are not available.”The Court observed that the father had not shown financial incapacity and he was financially independent. It was also noted by the Court that the father had not been living in the premises which were in dispute.While dealing with the dispute, the Court also examined Section 23, which dealt with voiding property transfers where maintenance conditions are violated. The Court clarified that this provision applies only when there has been a transfer of property with an expectation of maintenance. In the present case, no such transfer had occurred.The Court held that Section 23 could not be invoked in the absence of such foundational facts.While quashing the eviction order, the Court clarified that the father was not precluded from seeking relief under the Act in future. However, such relief would be subject to establishing statutory requirements.The Court directed:“Liberty is granted to the Father to make a fresh application but subject to the condition that he ought to demonstrate how he fits within the ambit and scope of Section 4, and provide empirical evidence for the same.”The Court further directed that if such application is filed, the sons would be entitled to respond with their own evidence.Based on its findings, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the eviction order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal.The Court held:“The Sons have indeed made out a case for exercise of intervention… to quash and set aside the Impugned Order.”The Court clarified that its decision was confined to jurisdictional aspects and did not affect other remedies available under law. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.WRIT PETITION NO. 5932 OF 2024 Prakash Krishna Gamare & Anr vs Krishna Ganpat Gamre & AnrFor Petitioner: Mr. S.C. Mangle, a/w Tanmay M. ShembavanekarFor Respondents: Ms. Vijayalaxmi Obhan, i/b Pankaj Jadhav(Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)