Court affirms protective jurisdiction of Senior Citizens Act, 2007; rejects son’s claim of absolute title and pendency of civil suit as bar to eviction
In a significant judgment dated 6th August 2026, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, dismissed a writ petition filed by Dr. M.S. Mahesh seeking to quash eviction orders passed against him under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“Senior Citizens Act”). The petitioner, a government medical officer, was directed to vacate the residential premises owned by his late father and occupied by his senior citizen mother, respondent No. 3, who had alleged harassment by her son and daughter-in-law.
The case arose when the petitioner’s mother filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, acting as a Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, alleging that her son and his family were subjecting her to harassment, including wrongful confinement and constant quarrels, which deprived her of peaceful residence. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application and ordered eviction. The petitioner appealed before the Deputy Commissioner, who upheld the eviction order. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash both orders.
The Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Senior Citizens Act empowers authorities to protect the life and property of senior citizens, including the authority to evict an occupant causing harassment. The Court emphasized that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity and peace in one’s own home. It found the concurrent findings of harassment by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner well supported by evidence, including the mother’s own statement in Court. It noted the petitioner’s contention that he and his family had long resided in the house but observed that the petitioner’s official posting was in Sakaleshpura, about 150 km away, making daily residence in Mysuru improbable.
Regarding the petitioner’s claim of absolute ownership under a Will dated 25.09.2000, the Court observed that the Will was superseded and cancelled by subsequent testamentary instruments, the last dated 22.12.2004, which subjected ownership to conditions not fulfilled by the petitioner. The Court found that the petitioner did not have a vested right to the property and that the mother, as a senior citizen and widow of the original owner, had a close and direct connection to the property. It further held that the pendency of a civil suit for partition filed by the mother herself did not bar the authorities’ protective jurisdiction under the Senior Citizens Act.
The petitioner relied heavily on Supreme Court and High Court precedents such as Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, arguing that eviction under the Act is discretionary and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Act where no conditional transfer was involved. The Court distinguished those cases, noting that those dealt with cancellation of transfers under Section 23, while the present case involved protection of a senior citizen from harassment under Section 22. It reiterated that eviction is not automatic but is justified where lesser measures fail and harassment is established.
The Court declined to interfere with the concurrent factual findings and the exercise of discretion by the authorities, stating that writ jurisdiction does not allow reappreciation of evidence or substitution of discretion. It directed the eviction orders to be implemented within 60 days and clarified that its observations on title were prima facie and without prejudice to the civil suit.
This judgment reinforces the protective object of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, affirming that senior citizens’ right to peaceful residence and dignity can prevail over property disputes and claims of long residence by family members causing harassment.
Bottom Line:
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Senior citizen mother seeking eviction of her son and his family on grounds of harassment - Tribunal under Section 22 of the Act justified in directing eviction when harassment is established and protection of life, dignity, and peaceful residence of the senior citizen is the object of the Act.
Statutory provision(s):
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Section 22, Section 23; Constitution of India Articles 21, 226, 227
Dr. M.S. Mahesh v. Deputy Commissioner, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2962909
