[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs Additional Collector And Appellant ... on 8 December, 2025
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
2025:BHC-OS:23802-DB
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
WP(L) No.31614/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 31614 OF 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh
S/o. Gorakh Govind Megh,
Age : 53 Yrs, Occu : Unemployed
R/at. Bungalow No. 30, Four
Bungalows MHADA, S.V.P. Nagar
Andheri (West), Mumbai - 4000 053 ... Petitioner
V/s.
1. Additional Collecter & Appellate Tribunal,
Mumbai Suburban District,
Administrative Building, 9th Floor
Government Colony, Bandra (E),
Mumbai - 400 051.
2. Gorakh Govind Megh
S/o. Govind Megh
Age : 75 Yrs, Occ : Retd. IAS Officer
R/at. Flat No. A502, Amaltas Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd,
Juhu Versova Link Road,
Andheri (W) Mumbai - 400 053. ... Respondents
_______________________________________
Mr. Jitendra Gorakh Megh, [party-in-person]
Mr. Suraj Gupte, learned AGP for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Kapil Moye a/w. Ms. Eesha Jaifalkar i/b. Mr. S.R. Page for Respondent
No. 2.
_______________________________________
Page 1 of 26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2025 20:34:41 :::
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
WP(L) No.31614/2025
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND
FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 17th NOVEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 8th DECEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Farhan P. Dubash J.) :
1. A short but interesting question has posed itself for
consideration in this matter - Whether an eviction order can be passed
under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007 without any claim towards maintenance being made by the senior
citizen?
2. The present Writ Petition challenges the order dated 1 st October
2025 (appellate order) passed by the Additional District Collector - Mumbai
exercising power as the Appellate Tribunal (Appellate Tribunal) under the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act). By
the appellate order, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred
by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 26 th August 2025 passed by
the Sub-Divisional Officer - Andheri exercising power as the Presiding
Officer - Parents and Citizens Maintenance Tribunal (Tribunal) under the
Act which inter alia allowed the application preferred by his father,
Respondent No.2 herein (senior citizen) directing the Petitioner to vacate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
Bungalow No. 30 of ground plus one upper floor situated at Four
Bungalows, MHADA, S.V.P. Nagar, Mumbai 400053 (subject premises) and
handover vacant and peaceful possession thereof to him.
3. Since the dispute involves a father and his son, we personally
met both the parties in chambers and tried our level best to see that an
amicable resolution is reached. However, despite our best efforts, we were
unable to succeed in our endeavors. Hence, we then placed the matter on
board and heard the arguments of both parties in open court.
BRIEF BACKGROUND
The facts relevant for adjudication of the present proceedings are set out
hereunder:
4. The senior citizen is the 75 year old father of the Petitioner,
who is a retired IAS Officer. On 26 th March 2024, the senior citizen filed an
application under Section 5 of the Act (said application) before the Tribunal
seeking an order evicting the Petitioner from the subject premises and to
also restrain him from causing any mental harassment to the senior citizen.
The said application also seeks monies stated to have been earned by the
Petitioner from using the subject premises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
5. In the said application, the senior citizen has pleaded that:
5(a) he is the owner of the subject premises which is stated to
have been purchased by him, from his own income.
5(b) he does not reside in the subject premises but instead,
resides in Flat No. 502, Amaltas Co-operative Housing
Society Limited, Juhu Versova Link Road, Andheri (W),
Azad Nagar, Mumbai together with his wife, the step-
mother of the Petitioner.
5(c) he permitted the Petitioner to live in the subject premises
on the ground of humanity, love and affection but the
Petitioner illegally encroached upon the entire subject
premises, by purportedly taking advantage of his illness
and age.
5(d) he is bearing all the expenses of the subject premises
including for its maintenance, electricity bills, water bills,
repairs etc. even though the Petitioner exclusively resides
therein.
5(e) the Petitioner is unemployed since several years and
living in the subject premises free of charge despite
illegally exploiting the subject premises for commercial
purposes by renting out a portion thereof (on the ground
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
floor) for the shooting of tv serials without the
permission of the senior citizen.
5(f) the Petitioner has filed various false cases against him
including inter alia a suit, in this Court, and as a result,
he did not want to allow the Petitioner to continue to
stay in the subject premises any longer.
5(g) he is suffering from diabetes, arthritis, leg pain and in
lieu thereof, is stated to have difficulty in walking. On
account of these ailments, he needs medical assistance
on a daily basis. On this ground, he asserts that it would
be convenient for him to stay on the ground floor of the
subject premises.
6. The Petitioner defended the said application and in his reply, he
has pointed out that:
6(a) the senior citizen was previously residing in Government
residence at Yashodhan, Opposite C.C.I., Churchgate,
Mumbai 400 020 before shifting to Flat No. 502 in
Amaltas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., which is
stated to be a luxurious 1600 sq. feet flat comprising of 4
bedrooms, hall, kitchen on the 5th Floor of the building
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
having 2 lifts.
6(b) in addition to this flat, the senior citizen also owns about
9 other properties which includes a bungalow and 7
other residential properties and commercial units.
6(c) the senior citizen is financially well off and has employed
a maid, a nurse, a driver and other staff to look after his
daily needs.
6(d) the subject premises is not the self-acquired property of
the senior citizen but instead, purchased by him from the
funds received from the yield from the crop of ancestral
property, in which, the Petitioner also has a share.
6(e) he has already filed a suit in this Court being Suit No.
1215 of 2019 seeking partition of all the properties
owned by the senior citizen in his capacity as the Karta
of his HUF, which includes the subject premises.
6(f) the senior citizen earns upwards of Rs. 10,00,000/- on a
monthly basis from letting out the said properties.
6(g) the senior citizen has not stayed in the subject premises
for even a single day and only he and his wife (post their
marriage) have been exclusively residing and occupying
the subject premises.
6(h) all the expenses including inter alia towards its
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
maintenance, property tax, water, electricity, etc., are
paid solely by him and not by the senior citizen.
6(i) a written declaration dated 2nd January 2013 has been
given by the senior citizen expressly permitting the
Petitioner and his wife, not only to reside in the subject
premises but also to conduct their business therefrom,
for as long as they want and without having to pay any
monies to the senior citizen, in lieu thereof.
7. By an order dated 26th August 2025 (eviction order), the said
application came to be allowed by the Tribunal and the Petitioner was
directed to vacate the subject premises within 30 days and handover vacant
and peaceful possession thereof to the senior citizen. The Petitioner was
also prohibited from doing any act that may harm the senior citizen's
physical and mental health or in any way affect his social standing or
disturb the peace of the senior citizen's home.
8. A perusal of the eviction order reveals that after noting all the
contentions of the senior citizen and the Petitioner, and which are also
noted hereinabove, a finding is given in favour of the senior citizen that he
is entitled to maintain the said complaint. The eviction order then holds
that since the senior citizen is suffering from arthritis and diabetes and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
needs to travel frequently for medical treatment, it would be proper that the
Petitioner be evicted from the subject premises and accordingly, ordered
eviction of the Petitioner from the subject premises.
9. The eviction order also expressly records that since the senior
citizen has not made any claim or demand for maintenance, there is no
need to go into or comment on that point. There is also a finding that the
pendency of the partition suit by the Petitioner would not have any bearing
on the said application and prevent the passing of the eviction order.
10. Being aggrieved by the eviction order, the Petitioner
approached the Appellate Tribunal and filed Appeal No. 75 of 2025 under
Section 16 of the Act. However, the Appellate Tribunal found favour with
and affirmed the eviction order and the said appeal came to be dismissed by
the appellate order dated 1st October 2025, which is challenged in the
present Writ Petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
11. Mr. Jitendra Megh, the Petitioner herein, appears in person. He
has taken us through the previous litigation between himself and the senior
citizen under the Act and also the partition suit filed by him. He has
reiterated the grounds already taken by him in his reply to the said
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
complaint. He reiterates that the senior citizen has never resided in the
subject premises. He also submits that the senior citizen is financially very
well off and does not seek any maintenance from him. To corroborate this
position, he also relies on the written statement filed by the senior citizen in
the partition suit where the senior citizen has admitted to owning the nine
immovable properties. Our attention is invited to an order dated 18 th April
2019 passed by this Court in the said partition suit in which, the statement
was recorded by the advocate who appeared on behalf of the senior citizen
therein, that pending the hearing and final disposal of the said partition
suit, the senior citizen did not intend to deal with, dispose of, alienate
and/or part with possession of the said immovable properties that are
situated in Maharashtra which included the subject premises. By relying on
this statement, the Petitioner contends that the appellate order amounts to
a breach of the said statement/order.
12. Our attention is also invited to several documents including
inter alia letters addressed by the senior citizen to various authorities
including MHADA and the MCGM and by relying on such correspondence
that has been addressed during the period 2022-2023, it is contended that
the senior citizen has dishonestly taken the plea and contended that he is
bearing all the expenses towards the subject premises. In fact, on perusal of
such correspondence addressed by the senior citizen, prima facie it is
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
revealed that in fact, the Petitioner is bearing all the expenses. Lastly, the
Petitioner submits that since the subject premises of a bungalow which
comprises of ground plus one upper floor, he has no objection to senior
citizen occupying the ground floor, as sought by him and he would occupy
only the 1st floor of the subject premises. He also undertook to conduct
himself in a manner not to harass the senior citizen.
13. Per contra, Mr. Kapil Moye, learned counsel who appears on
behalf of the senior citizen defends the appellate order and submits that
such an order is wholly justified under the provisions of the Act. He submits
that the subject premises belongs to the senior citizen and merely because
the Petitioner makes a claim to the title by filing a suit, its pendency would
not prevent the senior citizen from invoking the provisions of the Act and
approaching the Tribunal for an order of eviction. On instructions, Mr. Moye
admits that the senior citizen has never resided in the subject premises. He
further submits that the senior citizen owns the various immovable
properties that are alleged by the Petitioner, who, he contends, the
Petitioner has no share therein. He also submits that the senior citizen does
not need any financial assistance and therefore, he did not seek any
maintenance from the Petitioner. He therefore prays that the eviction order
ought not to be disturbed and the present Writ Petition, instead, ought to be
dismissed. He has also relied on the decisions of this Court in Shweta
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
Shetty v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.1 and that of the Delhi High Court in
Nasir v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.2 to buttress his submissions.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
14. In this background, we are required to consider whether the
senior citizen was entitled to invoke the summary provisions of the Act,
only to evict the Petitioner from the subject premises and without seeking
any relief of maintenance from him.
15. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the statement
of objects and reasons of the Act, which are set out hereunder:
"Statement of Objects and Reasons:
1. Traditional norms and values of the Indian society laid stress
on providing care for the elderly. However, due to withering
of the joint family system, a large number of elderly are not
being looked after by their family. Consequently, many older
persons, particularly widowed women are now forced to
spend their twilight years all alone and are exposed to
emotional neglect and to lack of physical and financial
support. This clearly reveals that ageing has become a major
social challenge and there is a need to give more attention to
the care and protection for the older persons. Though the
parents can claim maintenance under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the procedure is both time-consuming as
well as expensive. Hence, there is a need to have simple,
inexpensive and speedy provisions to claim maintenance for
parents.
2. The Bill proposes to cast an obligation on the persons who
inherit the property of their aged relatives to maintain such
aged relatives and also proposes to make provisions for
setting-up old age homes for providing maintenance to the
indigent older persons.
2021 SCC Online Bom 4575
2015 SCC Online Del 13060
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
The Bill further proposes to provide better medical facilities
to the senior citizens and provisions for protection of their life
and property.
3. The Bill, therefore, proposes to provide for:-
(a) appropriate mechanism to be set-up to provide
need-based maintenance to the parents and senior
citizens;
(b) providing better medical facilities to senior citizens;
(c) for institutionalisation of a suitable mechanism for
protection of life and property of older persons;
(d) setting-up of old age homes in every district.
4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives."
16. Next, it would be beneficial to note a few relevant provisions of
the Act, which are extracted hereunder:
"Section 4 - Maintenance of parents and senior
citizens.
(1) A senior citizen including parent who is unable to
maintain himself from his own earning or out of
the property owned by him, shall be entitled to
make an application under section 5 in case of-
(i) parent or grand-parent, against one or
more of his children not being a minor;
(ii) a childless senior citizen, against such of his
relative referred to in clause (g) of section
(2) The obligation of the children or relative, as the
case may be, to maintain a senior citizen extends
to the needs of such citizen so that senior citizen
may lead a normal life.
(3) The obligation of the children to maintain his or
her parent extends to the needs of such parent
either father or mother or both, as the case may
be, so that such parent may lead a normal life.
(4) Any person being a relative of a senior citizen and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
having sufficient means shall maintain such senior
citizen provided he is in possession of the
property of such senior citizen or he would inherit
the property of such senior citizen: Provided that
where more than one relatives are entitled to
inherit the property of a senior citizen, the
maintenance shall be payable by such relative in
the proportion in which they would inherit his
property.
Section 5 - Application for maintenance
(1) An application for maintenance under section 4,
may be made -
a. by a senior citizen or a parent, as the case
may be;
or
b. if he is incapable, by any other person or
organisation authorised by him;
or
c. the Tribunal may take cognizance suo
motu.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section
"organisation" means any voluntary association
registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860, or any other law for the time being in force.
(2) The Tribunal may, during the pendency of the
proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the
maintenance under this section, order such
children or relative to make a monthly allowance
for the interim maintenance of such senior citizen
including parent and to pay the same to such
senior citizen including parent as the Tribunal may
from time to time direct.
(3) On receipt of an application for maintenance
under sub-section(I), after giving notice of the
application to the children or relative and after
giving the parties an opportunity of being heard,
hold an inquiry for determining the amount of
maintenance.
(4) An application filed under sub-section (2) for the
monthly allowance for the maintenance and
expenses for proceeding shall be disposed of
within ninety days from the date of the service of
notice of the application to such person:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
Provided that the Tribunal may extend the said
period, once for a maximum period of thirty days
in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be
recorded in writing.
(5) An application for maintenance under sub-section
(I) may be filed against one or more persons:
Provided that such children or relative may
implead the other person liable to maintain parent
in the application for maintenance.
(6) Where a maintenance order was made against
more than one person, the death of one of them
does not affect the liability of others to continue
paying maintenance.
(7) Any such allowance for the maintenance and
expenses for proceeding shall be payable from
the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the
date of the application for maintenance or
expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.
(8) If, children or relative so ordered fail, without
sufficient cause to comply with the order, any
such Tribunal may, for every breach of the order,
issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the
manner provided for levying fines, and may
sentence such person for the whole, or any part of
each month's allowance for the maintenance and
expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,
remaining unpaid after the execution of the
warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one month or until payment if sooner
made whichever is earlier:
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the
recovery of any amount due under this section
unless application be made to the Tribunal to levy
such amount within a period of three months from
the date on which it became due."
"Section 9 - Order for maintenance.
( 1) If children or relatives, as the case may be,
neglect or refuse to maintain a senior citizen
being unable to maintain himself, the Tribunal
may, on being satisfied of such neglect or refusal,
order such children or relatives to make a
monthly allowance at such monthly rate for the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
maintenance of such senior citizen, as the
Tribunal may deem fit and to pay the same to
such senior citizen as the Tribunal may, from time
to time, direct.
(2) The maximum maintenance allowance which may
be ordered by such Tribunal shall be such as may
be prescribed by the State Government which
shall not exceed ten thousand rupees per month."
"Section 23 - Transfer of property to be void in
certain circumstances.
(1) Where any senior citizen who, after the
commencement of this Act, has transferred by
way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to
the condition that the transferee shall provide the
basic amenities and basic physical needs to the
transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to
provide such amenities and physical needs, the
said transfer of property shall be deemed to have
been made by fraud or coercion or under undue
influence and shall at the option of the transferor
be declared void by the Tribunal.
(2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive
maintenance out of an estate and such estate or
part thereof is transferred, the right to receive
maintenance may be enforced against the
transferee if the transferee has notice of the right,
or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the
transferee for consideration and without notice of
right.
(3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the
rights under sub-sections (1) and (2), action may
be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation
referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of
section 5."
17. We have considered some past judicial precedents that have
examined and interpreted the power of the Tribunal to pass an order of
eviction under the Act in favour of the senior citizen. These are as under:
17(a) Smt. S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
Urban District3 was one of the earliest decisions of the
Supreme Court which held that the Tribunal may have
the authority to order eviction, if it is necessary and
expedient to ensure maintenance and protection of the
senior citizen.
17(b) In Ranjana Rajkumar Makharia v. Mayadevi Subhkaran
Makharia4 this Court has expressly held that the
provisions of the Act, in particular Sections 4 and 5
thereof, cannot be used by a senior citizen to recover
property from any person, whether it be a child or a
relative of such senior citizen. This Court further
clarified that in a given case, it could however be
possible for a senior citizen to seek recovery of
possession or prohibit someone from taking or
continuing to be in possession of immovable property, as
a measure of maintenance, and not otherwise.
17(c) In Ritika Prashant Jasani v. Anjana Niranjan Jasani 5, the
Tribunal had passed an order of eviction against the son
and daughter-in-law of the senior citizen without any
order of maintenance. This Court, whilst setting aside
AIR 2021 SC 177
2020 (3) Mh.L.J. 587
2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1802
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
the said order of eviction and remanding the matter back
to the Tribunal for a fresh decision, recorded a finding
that in terms of Section 9 of the Act, the Tribunal was
required to be satisfied that the senior citizen had
suffered neglect at the hands of the children or relatives
or that they have refused to maintain the senior citizen.
This Court further held that though the procedure
contemplated under the Act was summary in nature,
none-the-less, the Tribunal is required to find out as to
whether, the flat in question belongs exclusively to the
senior citizen or is ancestral property where the children
may have a right in its ownership and/or residence.
17(d) In Nitin Rajendra Gupta Vs. Collector6, this Court, whilst
interpreting the provisions of Section 23 of the Act has
cautioned against using the machinery available under
the Act for settling property disputes.
18. In this backdrop, it is relevant to note the following admitted
factual position/events in the present case:
18(a) Despite filing the said application under Section 5(1) of
2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1031
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
the Act, the senior citizen has neither made any claim
nor sought any maintenance from the Petitioner.
18(b) The senior citizen does not reside in the subject premises
with the Petitioner. In fact, the senior citizen has never
resided in the subject premises.
18(c) The senior citizen resides in a separate residential flat in
Amaltas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd with his wife.
There is no pleading in the said application to suggest
that this residential flat is not suitable to the senior
citizen to reside in.
18(d) The senior citizen does not seek any financial assistance
from the Petitioner.
18(e) The subject premises stand in the name of the senior
citizen and there is no transfer thereof to the Petitioner.
However, a written declaration dated 2 nd January 2013
has been made by the senior citizen expressly permitting
the Petitioner and his wife, to reside in the subject
premises and to conduct their business therefrom, for as
long as they want and without having to pay any monies
to him.
18(f) No allegations of harassment and/or cruelty are made by
the senior citizen against the Petitioner. The only
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
assertion made in the said application is that of mental
pressure stated to have been caused to the senior citizen
on account of the Petitioner having filed false case
against him.
18(g) In fact, the said complaint proceeds on the basis that
since the Petitioner has filed false case against the senior
citizen in this Court, he does not want the Petitioner to
reside in the subject premises any more.
18(h) The said complaint also contains a bare averment that
due to the various ailments that the senior citizen is
stated to be suffering from, it would be 'convenient' for
him to stay in the ground floor of the subject premises,
which is his own property.
19. Thus, it is clear that the eviction order has not been passed in
furtherance of any claim for maintenance made by the senior citizen. This
position is also borne out from paragraph 10 of the eviction order which
expressly records that the senior citizen has not demanded any money for
maintenance and therefore, there is no need to comment on the same.
20. Section 4 of the Act contains provisions dealing with the
maintenance of parents and senior citizens. It prescribes that a senior
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
citizen who is unable to maintain himself from his own earnings or from
property owned by him, is entitled to make an application for maintenance
under Section 5 of the Act. The said section further prescribes that the
obligation of children to maintain the senior citizen extends to the needs of
such senior citizen so that he may lead a normal life. Section 5 contains
provisions relating to the application which the senior citizen can make for
maintenance. Sub-section (2) enables the Tribunal to order monthly
allowance to be paid to the senior citizen towards interim maintenance. In
these circumstances, when the senior citizen has made no claim for
maintenance, we fail to see how the said application which has been filed
by the senior citizen under section 5(2) of the Act, is maintainable, in the
first place. This position appears to have been completely overlooked, both
in the eviction order and also in the appellate order.
21. Moreover, neither of the two authorities viz. the Tribunal and
the Appellate Tribunal have considered and/or applied their mind to the
averments made in the said application. Admittedly, the senior citizen does
not reside in the subject premises which is occupied solely by the Petitioner
(and his wife). In fact, the senior citizen has never even resided in the
subject premises. Instead, he resides in a separate residential premises
situated in Amaltas Co-operative Housing Society Limited (as is also evident
from the address mentioned in the cause-title) together with his wife, the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
step-mother of the Petitioner. The only averment made in said application
(justifying the requirement and need of the subject premises by the senior
citizen) is that the senior citizen is suffering from diabetes, arthritis, leg
pain and has difficulty in walking and needs medical assistance on a daily
basis and therefore, it would be convenient for him to stay on the ground
floor of the subject premises. In our opinion, this is a vague assertion and
one, which is completely bereft of any details and/or particulars. There is
no explanation whatsoever as to why the senior citizen is desirous of leav-
ing his own residential premises (which is stated to be a 1600 sq. ft. apart-
ment comprising of four bedrooms) 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 con-
veniently enjoy the entire subject premises. Moreover, since the senior citi-
zen 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.
22. On the other hand, there appears to be some merit to the case
of the Petitioner. Admittedly, a written declaration dated 2 nd January 2013
was previously given by the senior citizen permitting the Petitioner (and his
wife), not only to reside in the subject premises but also to conduct their
business therefrom, for as long as they want and without having to pay any
monies to the senior citizen, in lieu thereof. Moreover, there is also corre-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
spondence addressed by the senior citizen himself which would reveal that
it is the Petitioner who is incurring expenditure for the subject premises in-
cluding inter alia towards its maintenance, property tax, water, electricity
which is contrary to the case pleaded by the senior citizen in the said appli-
cation.
23. The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal have also failed to
appreciate that (much prior to the said application) the Petitioner had made
a claim on the title to the subject premises and had already filed a suit in
this Court being Suit No. 1215 of 2019 seeking partition of various proper-
ties owned by the senior citizen, in his capacity as the Karta of his HUF,
which included the subject premises. In fact, this appears to be the main
reason which has prompted the senior citizen to file the said application.
This fact is clearly borne out from paragraphs 6 and 9 of the said applica-
tion in which the senior citizen states that since the Petitioner has filed a
false case in the Bombay High Court against him, he does not want the Peti-
tioner to reside in the subject premises any more, and hence, he is desirous
of evicting him therefrom. It is therefore quite evident that the said applica-
tion is nothing but a counter blast by the senior citizen to the partition suit
instituted by the Petitioner (which is still pending in this Court). The
provisions of the Act cannot be employed as a means to secure the
Respondent's summary eviction from the subject premises while the parties'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
proprietary rights remain sub-judice before the competent civil court. This is
reiterated in Ranjana Rajkumar Makharia (supra) and also in Nitin
Rajendra Gupta (supra).
24. The Act is a beneficial statute intended to safeguard the
vulnerable (senior citizen), but it cannot be (mis) used by the senior citizen
as a tool for summary eviction without the fulfilment of statutory
requirements. In the present case, we find that the said application does not
satisfy the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and is therefore not
maintainable. Accordingly, the eviction order could not have been passed by
the Tribunal and upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, vide the appellate order.
The senior citizen has not claimed any maintenance from the Petitioner and
the order of eviction is not in furtherance thereof. Eviction, as also held in
S. Vanitha (supra) would be an incident of the enforcement of the right to
maintenance and protection which should be granted only after adverting
to the competing claims of both parties in dispute. This has admittedly not
been done in the appellate order or in eviction order (which it confirms).
25. In fact, the senior citizen is financially well-to-do and owns
several other immovable properties, both residential and commercial and
instead, the record reveals that the Petitioner (if evicted from the subject
premises) would not have any other roof over his head. This is not disputed
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
by the senior citizen in the said application who in-fact asserts that the
Petitioner has been unemployed for several years. In such circumstances, it
was incumbent on the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal to have
considered these material factors before passing the eviction and appellate
orders. This has admittedly not been done. Instead, the eviction order
accepts all the averments made in the said application and proceeds to hold
that since the subject premises belong to the senior citizen and he needs to
reside therein since he travels frequently for medical treatment, the
Petitioner is required to be evicted therefrom.
26. The eviction order is thus clearly contrary to the scheme of the
Act. In fact, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal have both also lost
sight of the fact that the said application is bereft of any allegations of
harassment and/or cruelty by the Petitioner, which has not been considered
whilst passing the eviction order and the appellate order. There is no
finding, let alone any discussion in terms of Section 9 of the Act, that the
senior citizen had suffered neglect at the hands of the Petitioner, which was
required as per the decision in Ritika Prashant Jasani (supra). Hence, both
the appellate order as also the eviction order, cannot be sustained.
27. The decision in Shweta Shetty (supra) is of no assistance to the
senior citizen and is easily distinguishable on its facts. In that case, the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
daughter who was initially residing in Germany, returned to India and
began residing with the senior citizen and refused to vacate his premises,
unless she was given ' her share'. Nasir (supra) was a case where the Tri-
bunal permitted the senior citizen, who was admittedly the owner of the
property, to occupy one floor and give out the other two floors on rent and
recover the income therefrom. This is also distinguishable on facts. Hence,
neither decision is of any assistance to the senior citizen.
28. Before concluding, we would like to mention that prior to the
commencement of arguments in the matter, we had suggested a workable
arrangement to both parties - Since there were no allegations of cruelty
and/or harassment against the Petitioner, whether the senior citizen would
be agreeable to occupy the ground floor of the subject premises (as he had
sought, in the said application) whilst the Petitioner (and his wife) would
occupy only the first floor thereof. However, though the Petitioner was open
to such an arrangement, the senior citizen was not agreeable to the same.
OPERATIVE ORDER
29. In the premises, the present Writ Petition is disposed of in
terms of the following order:
ORDER
(a) The appellate order dated 1 st October 2025 passed by the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh Vs. Addl. Collector & Anr.
Additional District Collector - Mumbai exercising power as
the Appellate Tribunal and the eviction order dated 26th
August 2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer - And-
heri exercising power as the Presiding Officer - Parents
and Citizens Maintenance Tribunal are both, hereby
quashed and set aside.
(b) There shall be no order as to costs.
[FARHAN P. DUBASH, J] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]
JYOTI Digitally signed
by JYOTI
PRAKASH PRAKASH PAWAR
Date: 2025.12.08
PAWAR 17:02:39 +0530
Jyoti P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order dated 8th December 2025
