Senior Citizens Act can't be invoked by one senior citizen against another for property: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be invoked by one senior citizen against another in property disputes [Vimal Dagadu Kate & Anr v State of Maharashtra]..A single Bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne observed,“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... Jurisdiction of Maintenance Tribunal cannot be invoked by one senior citizen to recover possession of premises from another senior citizen.”.The Court was dealing with a plea filed by one, Vimal Dagadu Kate and her family (petitioners) who challenged an October 2023 order passed by a tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act. By the 2023 order, the tribunal had directed the petitioners to vacate the first floor of a slum structure. The case before the tribunal was initiated by Kate's younger sister, who claimed the petitioners had encroached on the first-floor premises, while she resided on the ground floor.Kate’s counsel argued that the case was not related to the maintenance or welfare of senior citizens, but was only a simple property dispute which should have been resolved through a civil court. On the other hand, her sister’s counsel contended that the tribunal had jurisdiction under the Senior Citizens Act to address the matter, even though it involved property possession..The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing that the tribunal constituted under the Senior Citizens Act was not the proper forum to resolve property disputes. Justice Marne held that the case at hand involved a dispute over the possession of the first-floor of certain premises, which could not be adjudicated 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 added. The Court further clarified that Kate was not obligated to maintain her sister, and therefore, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to order the eviction. “Petitioner No.1 is admittedly not supposed to maintain Respondent No.2. Therefore, jurisdiction of the Tribunal could not have been invoked to seek recovery of possession of first floor premises from the Petitioners," it said. .Justice Marne concluded by stating that the tribunal's jurisdiction had been misused in this case.“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 said. .Senior citizens entitled to revoke gift deeds if children fail to take care of them: Madras High Court.The Court set aside the tribunal’s order and allowed the petitioners to retain the premises. However, it clarified that the sister could pursue other legal avenues to recover possession of the property through a civil court. The Court also instructed the petitioners to settle any outstanding charges for utilities and prohibited them from harassing the respondent sister. Additionally, it noted that time spent in pursuing the case before the tribunal would not be counted toward the limitation period for filing a civil suit..Advocate Santosh S Jagtap with advocate Amar K Shilwant appeared for the petitioner-Vimal Dagadu Kate.Additional Government Pleader S D Rayrikar appeared for the StateAdvocate Mahesh H Chandanshiv appeared for the sister..[Read Order]