Advertisement
The Supreme Court has directed a man to vacate two properties in Mumbai and hand them back to his 80-year-old father. The order was passed after the son was found preventing his father and mother, aged 78, from residing in their own homes. A tribunal had earlier ruled in favour of the parents, ordering eviction of the son and a monthly maintenance of INR 3,000. While the Bombay High Court had later overturned this decision, the apex court had restored the tribunal's order, confirming that such authorities are empowered under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to ensure the rights and welfare of senior citizens.
The Supreme Court has ordered a son to vacate two residential properties in Mumbai and return them to his 80-year-old father, reaffirming the rights of senior citizens over their self-acquired properties. The father, along with his 78-year-old wife, had been denied the right to live in the houses by their son despite being the lawful owner. Advertisement
The matter began when the father approached the maintenance tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking both eviction of his son and monthly financial support. In its order, the tribunal directed that possession of the properties be handed back to the father and also awarded INR 3,000 as monthly maintenance. The appellate tribunal upheld this decision.
The son challenged the order before the Bombay High Court, which quashed the eviction, holding that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to pass such an order. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, observing that the law gives tribunals the authority to order eviction if children or relatives fail to care for senior citizens or prevent them from residing in their own properties. The bench pointed out that this law is intended to safeguard senior citizens and should be applied with that objective in mind.
The court also underlined that although the son is financially independent, he was not maintaining his parents and had denied them the right to live in the homes they had purchased. The judges noted that in earlier cases too, tribunals had correctly exercised their power to order eviction in similar circumstances.
As part of the ruling, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the son to file a written undertaking within two weeks, confirming that he would vacate the properties by the end of November. Until this undertaking is submitted, the tribunal's earlier eviction order will remain on hold. If the son fails to provide the undertaking in time, the father will be free to seek immediate enforcement of the tribunal's order.
Source PTI
5th Jun, 2025
25th May, 2023
11th May, 2023
27th Apr, 2023
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
