Chhattisgarh HC: Senior Citizens Act Empowers Tribunals to Order Eviction to Ensure a Peaceful Life

The Chhattisgarh High Court has solidified the protective reach of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, ruling that Maintenance Tribunals possess the incidental power to order the eviction of children or relatives to secure the dignity and peaceful residence of elderly parents. This judgment reinforces that welfare proceedings for senior citizens cannot be stalled by technical disputes over property titles or the absence of a specific monetary maintenance claim.

A single-judge bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad heard the challenge against concurrent orders of the Maintenance and Appellate Tribunals. The Court emphasized that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a social welfare legislation that must be interpreted liberally to fulfill the constitutional vision of Article 41, ensuring that the elderly lead a life free from harassment and neglect.

Tribunal’s Jurisdiction Extends Beyond Monetary Maintenance

The Court clarified that the concept of 'maintenance' under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is not restricted to financial support but encompasses a holistic sense of welfare, including the right to live in a secure and peaceful environment. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The concept of 'maintenance' under the Act is not to be understood in a narrow monetary sense alone. The statute is designed to secure not merely financial support but also the broader welfare of parents and senior citizens, which includes food, residence, protection and the ability to live in peace and dignity. A senior citizen who is financially secure may yet be subjected to harassment, coercion, abuse or unlawful interference in her residence by her children or relatives, and it would be wholly contrary to the object of the Act to hold that in such a situation she is remediless merely because she does not seek a quantified amount of monthly maintenance."

Power of Eviction Incident to Welfare

Rejecting the petitioners' argument that the Tribunal lacked the authority to direct eviction, the Court held that such power is necessary for the effective enforcement of the Act. The Court has following directions:

"The order dated 12/09/2024 passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal, Bilaspur, as affirmed by the appellate order dated 25/11/2024 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Presiding Officer, Appellate Tribunal, Bilaspur, does not call for interference. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition."

The Court further noted that even if the children are themselves senior citizens, it does not grant them an overriding right to occupy the premises of another senior citizen against their wishes if such occupation causes harassment.

Background:

The dispute involved a 93-year-old mother (Respondent No. 3) and her son and daughter-in-law (Petitioners). The mother alleged continuous harassment and intimidation by the petitioners, who resided on the first floor of her house. She sought their eviction under Section 5 read with Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Maintenance Tribunal ordered the petitioners' eviction, a decision subsequently upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.

The petitioners challenged these orders before the High Court, contending that the property title was disputed and that Petitioner No. 2 held a registered sale deed for a portion of the land. They argued that mutation entries did not confer title and that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 did not empower the Tribunal to adjudicate property disputes or order eviction. They further claimed that since the mother received a pension, she did not require 'maintenance'.

The High Court dismissed these contentions, relying on S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. ( "(2021) 15 SCC 730": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 585) and Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit ( "(2025) 2 SCC 787": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 11) to hold that Tribunals can order eviction when necessary for a senior citizen's protection. The Court noted that the mother had produced substantial evidence, including electricity bills and financial documents, to establish her long-settled possession and construction of the house.

Key Takeaways:

Holistic Definition of Welfare

Maintenance is not just about money; it includes the right to a peaceful life, free from mental harassment and threats to physical safety.

Eviction as a Valid Remedy

Tribunals have the legal authority to evict relatives from a senior citizen's property if their presence is detrimental to the senior citizen's well-being.

Title Disputes Cannot Block Welfare

Ongoing civil disputes over property titles or mutation entries do not prevent the Tribunal from exercising its jurisdiction to protect an elderly person's residence.

Liberal Interpretation of Section 23

Conditions for maintenance in property transfers (like gift deeds) can be implied based on love and affection, and do not always need to be explicitly stated in writing.

Ratio Decidendi:

The jurisdiction of Tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is not limited to awarding monthly allowances but extends to passing ancillary directions, including eviction, to ensure the dignity and peaceful residence of senior citizens. Procedural technicalities of civil suits do not apply to these summary proceedings, and the status of 'senior citizen' does not grant children an indefeasible right to occupy their parents' property against the parents' will.

Case Details:
Case No.: WPC No. 6077 of 2024
NeutralCitation: 2026:CGHC:27068
Case Title: Devendra Khanna and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Nayak, P.L. for State; Mr. Rupesh Shrivastava, Advocate for Respondent No. 3

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CTH) 12