3 min readMumbaiDec 8, 2025 09:31 PM IST
First published on: Dec 8, 2025 at 09:30 PM IST
In a relief to the son of a former IAS officer, the Bombay High Court on Monday set aside the order of the Senior Citizens Welfare Tribunal that directed him to vacate the bungalow in Mumbai and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the father.
The tribunal had allowed the father’s plea seeking direction to evict his son from the premises and restrain him from causing any mental harassment to the father, which was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The father had alleged mental pressure caused by the son. Aggrieved, the son had approached the HC challenging orders by the Tribunals.
The HC observed that the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal failed to consider that the senior citizen father does not reside in the subject premises which was occupied solely by the petitioner’s son and his wife.
The Court noted that the father had “never resided in the subject premises” and instead stayed in a separate residential premises with his wife. The HC also observed that the eviction order passed by the Tribunals recorded that the senior citizen had not made any claim or demand for maintenance.
A division bench of Justices Riyaz I Chagla and Farhan P Dubash passed a verdict on a plea by the son of septuagenerian former IAS officer. The Tribunal under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 had earlier this year passed the eviction order and directed the son to vacate the premises within 30 days. The Appellate Tribunal in October, this year upheld the Tribunal’s order.
Justice Dubash for the bench also noted that before commencing arguments in the matter, the court had suggested “workable arrangements to both parties – since there were no allegations of cruelty and/or harassment against the petitioner”. The court said, efforts were also made to find a solution whether the senior citizen would agree a to occupy the ground floor of the subject premises. However, he did not agree to the same.
“There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the senior citizen is desirous of leaving his own residential premises and move to the subject premises which is a bungalow comprising ground plus one upper floor, especially when he has difficulty in walking and as a result, would not be in a position to conveniently enjoy the entire subject premises. Moreover, since the senior citizen has never resided in the subject premises, this is not a case where there is any sentiment attachment of the senior citizen to occupying it,” the HC noted in its order.
The Court further observed that the senior citizen was “financially well-to-do and owned several other immovable properties” and on the other hand the material on record showed that the son, “if evicted from the subject bungalow would not have any other roof over his head.”
The bench said it was “incumbent on the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal to have considered these material factors before passing the eviction orders” and the same was not done, therefore the impugned orders deserved to be quashed and set aside.
The Court noted that the father had "never resided in the subject premises" and instead stayed in a separate residential premises with his wife. (Source: Express Archives) 
Share
