Senior Citizens Act Can't Be Invoked By One Senior Citizen Against Another To Recover Possession Of Premises: Bombay High Court

Justice Sandeep V Marne in his order observed, “This clearly appears to be proceedings for recovery of possession of first floor premises. which in my view cannot be filed by invoking the provisions of the Act. The proceedings appear to my mind in the nature of suit for recovery of possession of first floor premises, which could not have been entertained and decided by the Tribunal. To make the case of Respondent No.2 worse, Petitioner No.1 is her sister and also a senior citizen. Jurisdiction of Maintenance Tribunal cannot be invoked by one senior citizen to recover possession of premises from another senior citizen”. 

The Court was considering the petitioners' challenge to the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizen Tribunal's order, which directed them to handover possession of a premises to respondent no. 2, a senior citizen.

Respondent no. 2 resides in the ground floor of the subject property and she claimed that her sister (petitioner no. 1), also a senior citizen and another petitioner encroached upon the first floor of the premises.

The High Court noted that proceedings initiated by respondent no.2 against petitioners was for recovery of possession of first floor premises. It observed that such proceedings for recovery of possession cannot be initiated under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.

It noted that the petitioner no. 1, who is sister of respondent no. 2, has no obligation to maintain her and thus the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Act could not have been invoked.

 Noting that a senior citizen cannot invoke the provisions of the Act against another senior citizen to recover possession of premises, it observed that the adjudication about the right of an occupier of preemies could only be undertaken by a Civil Court. It further observed that the tribunal in a summary inquiry cannot adjudicate on complicated questions about right of an occupier to possess first floor. 

The Court remarked that the Tribunal's order directing possession of premises was a “gross abuse of jurisdiction.”

“In my view therefore, the present case involves gross abuse of jurisdiction of the Tribunal which is utilized for the purpose of securing possession of first floor premises from one senior citizen by another senior citizen.”

The Court thus quashed the Tribunal's order however clarifying that the court had passed the order in the unique facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as precedent in any other case. 

The court further granted liberty to Respondent No.2 to initiate such proceedings as would be maintainable for recovery of possession of first floor premises from the Petitioners. 

Case title: Vimal Dagadu Kate & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (Writ Petition No.882 Of 2024)