Senior Citizens Act | Assistant Commissioner Can Order Eviction Where Required To Protect Senior Citizens’ Rights : Karnataka HC
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna has held that the Assistant Commissioner acting under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 may direct eviction in cases where this extraordinary jurisdiction is required to protect senior citizens’ rights. Dismissing a writ petition by a daughter-in-law challenging an order requiring her and her children to vacate a residential house and hand over possession to her elderly mother-in-law, the Court upheld the Senior Citizens Tribunal’s decision and rejected the contention that the authority lacked power to order eviction, holding that such directions fall within the statutory framework for securing maintenance and protection of the elderly.
After the death of her husband, the petitioner, along with her children and the senior citizen first respondent, resided in a house at Ballari. The petitioner and the second respondent are both daughters-in-law of the first respondent. As relations became strained, the first respondent invoked the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, by filing an application before the Assistant Commissioner on 15.04.2025. In this application, the first respondent sought eviction of the petitioner and her children from the residential house and also sought cancellation of a separate gift deed executed in favour of the second respondent in respect of another property. A report was obtained from the competent authority before the Assistant Commissioner passed the impugned order.
The petitioner then approached the High Court by way of a writ petition challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner contended that the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Act to direct eviction in such proceedings and sought permission to continue in the premises. The first respondent opposed the petition, filing a memo with documents to assert that the petitioner was not residing in the subject house and submitting that the authority under the Act could, in appropriate cases, order eviction. The State supported the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
The Court first set out the governing principles from recent Supreme Court decisions, recording that “The Apex Court in the judgments quoted supra has emphatically observed that the Act does not in express terms contemplate a general power to initiate eviction against an occupant of the premises owned, by or belonging to a senior citizen. It is only in a compelling circumstances, qua the facts obtaining in every case, where the protection, dignity and welfare of a senior citizen so demands, that the Tribunal by justifiably pass an eviction order.”
Building on this, the Court noted that “The judgments in the cases of SAMTOLA DEVI supra, further builds upon the principles laid down in the case of URMILA DIXIT supra, reaffirming that eviction cannot be sought as a matter of routine or ordered for the asking. The jurisdiction is extraordinary to be invoked where rights of the elderly are to be protected.”
Referring to the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s view in ANIL v. SUBHADRA, the Court extracted that “It is only for the purpose of securing the right of residence of the Parent or Senior Citizen, as the case may be, that the person in unauthorized possession is directed to be evicted for securing such right. Moreover, the definition of ‘maintenance’ under Section 2(b) of the Act specifically includes within it provision for ‘residence’. If for providing maintenance in the form of residence under Section 4/5 of the Act, 2007 the Tribunal directs for dispossession or eviction of a person in possession thereof without any authority it cannot be said that it acts beyond jurisdiction in any manner.”
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s clarification in S. Vanitha, noting that “In S. Vanitha … this Court observed that Tribunals under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizen. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot order possession to be transferred. This would defeat the purpose and object of the Act, which is to provide speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies for the elderly.”
Applying these principles, the Court recorded that “Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the Court finds no perversity or infirmity in the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The senior citizen in the case at hand has been housed in the outhouse, depriving the senior citizen of dignified access to her own home, as the house is in the possession of the petitioner, who does not reside in the said premises. The petitioner having shifted residence to Andhra Pradesh after her husband’s demise cannot insist on retaining the premises on the basis of frayed relationship with the senior citizen.
The Court directed: “In the light of the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, given the unique factual matrix obtaining in the case at hand, this Court finds no merit in the challenge mounted, therefore, the writ petition fails and accordingly, dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri Srinivas Naik, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri V.S. Kalasurmath, Additional Government Advocate; Smt. Gayathri S.R, Advocate
Case Title: Smt. Soumya W/o Late Suresh Rao vs. Smt. Ratnakumari & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No.104795 of 2025 (GM-RES)
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
