Eviction as an Incident of Maintenance, Not a Stand-Alone Remedy: A Commentary on Jitendra Gorakh Megh v. Additional Collector & Anr., Bombay High Court, 8 December 2025

I. Introduction

The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Jitendra Gorakh Megh v. Additional Collector & Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Suburban District & Anr., Writ Petition (L) No. 31614 of 2025, has laid down an important clarification on the scope of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“MWPSC Act” or “the Act”).

The central question framed by the Court was precise:

Whether an eviction order can be passed under the MWPSC Act, 2007 without any claim towards maintenance being made by the senior citizen?

Answering this in the negative, the Court held that:

An application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act must be rooted in a claim for maintenance by a senior citizen who is unable to maintain himself from his own income or property.
Eviction is not an independent, stand-alone remedy under the Act; it may only be ordered as an incident or measure in furtherance of maintenance and protection.
The Act, being a beneficial/welfare statute, cannot be misused as a tool to secure summary eviction of children or relatives in the guise of “maintenance” when the senior citizen is financially secure and no neglect, refusal to maintain, or harassment is established.

The case is also notable because it arises out of an intra-family dispute between a father (a retired IAS officer and senior citizen) and his son, against the backdrop of a pending partition suit concerning multiple properties. The Court’s reasoning carefully balances the protective purpose of the Act with safeguards against its misuse in property and succession disputes.

II. Factual Background and Procedural History

1. The Parties and the Property

Petitioner: Mr. Jitendra Gorakh Megh, aged 53, unemployed, residing in Bungalow No. 30, Four Bungalows, MHADA, Andheri (W), Mumbai.
Respondent No. 2: Mr. Gorakh Govind Megh, aged 75, a retired IAS officer, father of the Petitioner, described as a senior citizen under the Act.
Respondent No. 1: Additional Collector & Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Suburban District.

The core immovable property in dispute is:

Bungalow No. 30, ground plus one upper floor, Four Bungalows, MHADA, S.V.P. Nagar, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053 (“subject premises”).

The subject premises stand in the name of the senior citizen (Respondent No. 2). The Petitioner-son has been residing there with his wife.

2. Senior Citizen’s Application under the MWPSC Act

On 26 March 2024, the senior citizen filed an application under Section 5 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Andheri, acting as the Parents and Citizens Maintenance Tribunal (“Tribunal”), seeking:

Eviction of the Petitioner from the subject premises and delivery of vacant and peaceful possession to the senior citizen.
An injunction restraining the Petitioner from causing mental harassment to him.
Monies allegedly earned by the Petitioner by using parts of the premises commercially (e.g., renting for TV serial shoots).

Key assertions by the senior citizen included:

He is the owner of the subject premises purchased from his own income.
He does not reside in the subject premises and instead lives with his wife (Petitioner’s step-mother) in a flat at Amaltas Co-operative Housing Society, Juhu Versova Link Road, Andheri (W).
He permitted the son to live in the subject premises out of love, but alleges that the son has “encroached” upon the entire bungalow.
He claims that he bears all expenses of the subject premises—maintenance, electricity, water, repairs—despite not residing there.
He complains that the son is unemployed and is commercially exploiting the ground floor by renting it out for TV serial shootings without his permission.
He mentions multiple ailments (diabetes, arthritis, leg pain) and states that it would be “convenient” for him to stay on the ground floor of the bungalow.
He asserts that the Petitioner has filed false cases against him, including a suit in the Bombay High Court, and on that basis he no longer wants the Petitioner to stay in the premises.

Notably, while the application was filed under Section 5, the senior citizen did not seek any maintenance (monetary or otherwise) from the Petitioner.

3. The Son’s Defence

The Petitioner-son contested the application and asserted, inter alia, that:

The senior citizen lives in a large and comfortable flat at Amaltas Co-operative Housing Society—about 1600 sq. ft., four bedrooms, hall, kitchen, with two lifts—and previously resided in a government residence at Churchgate.
The senior citizen owns about nine other properties, including a bungalow and several residential and commercial units, and is financially well off.
The father employs domestic staff (maid, nurse, driver, etc.) and does not require any financial support from the son.
The subject premises are not self-acquired by the father alone but were purchased using income from ancestral agricultural property in which the Petitioner claims a share.
The Petitioner has already filed Suit No. 1215 of 2019 in the Bombay High Court seeking partition of various properties held by the father as Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), which includes the subject premises.
The senior citizen allegedly earns more than Rs. 10,00,000/- per month from letting out his properties.
The senior citizen has never resided in the subject premises; only the Petitioner and his wife have resided there.
All expenses relating to the bungalow—maintenance, property tax, water, electricity—are actually paid by the Petitioner, contrary to the father’s claim.
Significantly, the senior citizen executed a written declaration dated 2 January 2013, expressly permitting the Petitioner and his wife:
- to reside in the subject premises, and
- to conduct their business from it,
for as long as they wish, without payment of any amount to the senior citizen.

The Petitioner also relied on an order dated 18 April 2019 in the partition suit, where the senior citizen’s advocate recorded a statement that the senior citizen would not deal with or part with possession of certain Maharashtra properties (including the subject premises) during the pendency of the suit. The Petitioner argued that the eviction order breached this recorded statement.

4. Orders of the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal

(a) Tribunal’s Eviction Order (26 August 2025)

The Parents and Citizens Maintenance Tribunal:

Accepted the senior citizen’s ownership and his right to maintain the complaint.
Emphasized the senior citizen’s ailments (arthritis, diabetes) and need to travel for medical treatment.
Held that it would be "proper" to evict the son so the senior citizen could occupy the premises.
Explicitly recorded that the senior citizen had not made any claim for maintenance, and therefore the Tribunal would not go into that aspect.
Directed the Petitioner to vacate the subject premises within 30 days and hand over vacant and peaceful possession.
Prohibited the Petitioner from any act that may harm the senior citizen’s physical or mental health, social standing, or disturb his peace.
Held that the pendency of the partition suit did not bar the eviction order.

(b) Appellate Tribunal’s Order (1 October 2025)

The Petitioner appealed under Section 16 of the Act (Appeal No. 75 of 2025). The Additional District Collector, functioning as the Appellate Tribunal:

Affirmed the Tribunal’s reasoning and dismissed the appeal.
Confirmed the eviction of the Petitioner from the subject premises.

5. Before the High Court

The Petitioner appeared in person before the High Court; Respondent No. 2 was represented by counsel. The Bench (R.I. Chagla and Farhan P. Dubash, JJ.) attempted an amicable settlement in chambers—proposing that:

The senior citizen occupy the ground floor of the bungalow; and
The Petitioner and his wife occupy only the first floor;

but the senior citizen declined this compromise, though the Petitioner agreed.

The High Court then reserved judgment and, on 8 December 2025, delivered its decision quashing both the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal orders.

III. Issues Before the Court

The principal issue was explicitly framed in paragraph 1 of the judgment:

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?

This broader issue raised several embedded questions:

Maintainability: Can a senior citizen invoke Sections 4 and 5 of the Act solely for eviction, without asserting that he is unable to maintain himself from his own income or property and without claiming maintenance?
Nature of Eviction Power: Is eviction under the Act a free-standing remedy, or is it permissible only as an incident of enforcing the right to maintenance and protection?
Interplay with Civil Proceedings: Can the summary machinery under the Act be used where disputes about title and beneficial interest are sub-judice in a civil court (e.g., a partition suit involving alleged HUF property)?
Neglect and Harassment: In the absence of any pleading or finding of neglect, refusal to maintain, cruelty, or harassment by the son, can eviction be ordered under the Act?

IV. Summary of the Judgment

The Bombay High Court held that:

An application under Sections 4 and 5 of the MWPSC Act is not maintainable when the senior citizen:
- does not claim maintenance of any kind (monetary or other), and
- is not shown to be unable to maintain himself from his own income or property.
Eviction is not a stand-alone remedy under the Act. It may be ordered only as an incident of enforcing the right of maintenance and protection, after the statutory conditions—such as inability to maintain oneself and neglect/refusal by children or relatives—are satisfied.
The senior citizen in this case is financially well off, owns multiple properties, and has never resided in the subject premises. There is no allegation of harassment or cruelty; at most, there is a complaint of “mental pressure” because the son has filed civil cases.
The High Court found that the application before the Tribunal was essentially a counter-blast to the Petitioner’s partition suit and an attempt to use the MWPSC Act as a mechanism for summary eviction in an ongoing property dispute. This is impermissible.
The Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal failed to:
- consider the maintainability of the application under Sections 4 and 5,
- analyse the senior citizen’s financial position and residence,
- consider the Petitioner’s competing hardships (unemployment and lack of alternative residence), and
- apply Section 9’s requirement of neglect/refusal to maintain.
Both the eviction order (26 August 2025) and the appellate order (1 October 2025) were therefore quashed and set aside.
No order as to costs was made.

In doing so, the Court reinforced that the MWPSC Act is a beneficial statute for vulnerable senior citizens, but it cannot be used as an instrument to override pending civil disputes or as a shortcut to regain control of property where its statutory preconditions are not met.

V. Statutory Framework and Key Provisions

1. Objects and Reasons of the MWPSC Act

The Court placed emphasis on the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, which highlights:

Withering of the joint family system and neglect of the elderly.
The need for simple, inexpensive, and speedy provisions for maintenance, as the remedy under the Criminal Procedure Code is time-consuming and expensive.
Core aims of the Act:
- Setting up mechanisms for need-based maintenance of parents and senior citizens.
- Providing better medical facilities.
- Protecting the life and property of older persons.
- Establishing old age homes in every district.

The Court uses this to frame the Act’s purpose: maintenance, care, and protection—not as a property recovery tool per se.

2. Section 4 – Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens

Key elements:

A senior citizen or parent must be unable to maintain himself from his own earnings or from property owned by him to be entitled to make an application under Section 5.
The obligation of children/relatives extends to meeting such needs that enable the senior citizen to lead a “normal life”.
Relatives with sufficient means who are in possession of, or likely to inherit, the property of a senior citizen can be made liable for maintenance.

3. Section 5 – Application for Maintenance

Section 5 lays down:

Who may apply (the senior citizen, someone authorised, or even the Tribunal suo motu).
Power to grant interim maintenance (Section 5(2)).
Duty to dispose of maintenance proceedings within 90 days (extendable by 30 days in exceptional circumstances).
Procedure for enforcement, including possible imprisonment for non-compliance.

Critically, in this case the senior citizen invoked Section 5 but did not seek maintenance at all, which the Court found fatal to maintainability.

4. Section 9 – Order for Maintenance

Section 9 empowers the Tribunal to award monthly maintenance where:

Children or relatives neglect or refuse to maintain a senior citizen who is unable to maintain himself.
The Tribunal must be satisfied of such neglect or refusal.

The maximum maintenance amount is capped by State prescription (not exceeding Rs. 10,000 per month).

The Court notes that the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal failed to:

Examine whether the senior citizen was in fact unable to maintain himself; or
Record any finding of neglect or refusal by the Petitioner.

5. Section 23 – Transfer of Property to Be Void in Certain Circumstances

Section 23 allows a senior citizen to seek to void a gift or transfer of property where the transferee fails to provide agreed amenities and needs. The Court cites earlier precedent (Nitin Rajendra Gupta) cautioning against use of this provision and the Act more generally to resolve property disputes.

In the present case, no transfer of the subject premises from the senior citizen to the Petitioner had occurred; hence Section 23 was not directly invoked. The case instead involved permissive occupation via the 2013 written declaration.

VI. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Smt. S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, AIR 2021 SC 177

The Supreme Court in S. Vanitha recognised that:

The Tribunal under the MWPSC Act may direct eviction of children or relatives where necessary and expedient for the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen.
Eviction orders must be issued keeping in view the objectives of the Act and after duly considering competing rights (e.g., rights under other statutes).

The Bombay High Court relies on S. Vanitha to emphasise that:

Eviction would be an incident of the enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection and should be granted only after adverting to the competing claims of both parties in dispute.

Thus, the power to order eviction is not autonomous; it is tied to the senior citizen’s substantive right to maintenance. In Jitendra Megh’s case, since the senior citizen did not seek maintenance and was financially secure, the factual predicates that justify eviction as a protective measure were absent.

2. Ranjana Rajkumar Makharia v. Mayadevi Subhkaran Makharia, 2020 (3) Mh.L.J. 587

In this Bombay High Court decision:

The Court held that Sections 4 and 5 of the MWPSC Act do not permit a senior citizen to deploy the Act solely to recover property from any person (including children or relatives).
However, in appropriate cases, recovery of possession can be ordered as a measure of maintenance—for example, where occupation by a child/relative hinders the senior citizen’s ability to enjoy or derive income from the property needed for his sustenance.

The present judgment closely follows and reinforces this principle: eviction and recovery of property are ancillary tools in the enforcement of maintenance, not independent causes of action under the Act.

3. Ritika Prashant Jasani v. Anjana Niranjan Jasani, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1802

In Ritika Jasani, the Tribunal had ordered eviction of the son and daughter-in-law from the senior citizen’s flat without passing any order of maintenance. The High Court:

Set aside the eviction order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal.
Held that under Section 9, the Tribunal must be satisfied about neglect or refusal to maintain.
Stressed that even though proceedings under the Act are summary, the Tribunal must inquire whether:
- the property exclusively belongs to the senior citizen; or
- it is ancestral/HUF property where children may have ownership or residence rights.

The present judgment adopts this reasoning and notes that:

There was no finding of neglect or refusal to maintain.
The Petitioner had set up a case that the property was part of HUF/ancestral assets and had already filed a partition suit.
This factor ought to have been carefully considered before granting eviction in summary proceedings.

4. Nitin Rajendra Gupta v. Collector, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1031

In Nitin Rajendra Gupta, the Bombay High Court warned against:

Using the machinery available under the Act for settling property disputes.

The present judgment draws on this cautionary approach. It finds that Respondent No. 2’s application is in substance a response to the Petitioner’s partition suit, and that the Act cannot be used as a summary forum for resolving title or HUF property disputes.

5. Precedents Relied on by the Senior Citizen and Distinguished

(a) Shweta Shetty v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 4575

In Shweta Shetty, the daughter had returned from Germany, began living with the senior citizen, and refused to vacate his premises unless given “her share”. The facts involved clear intransigence by a child occupying the senior citizen’s accommodation and demanding an immediate property share.

The Court in the present case held this decision distinguishable:

The senior citizen here has never resided in the subject bungalow.
He has multiple other properties and is not dependent on this property for residence.
There is a prior written permission granted to the son to reside and conduct business there indefinitely.

(b) Nasir v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13060

In Nasir, the Tribunal permitted the senior citizen, admittedly the owner, to:

Occupy one floor of the property; and
Let out the other two floors to generate rental income.

This was clearly to secure the senior citizen’s maintenance and financial needs. The Bombay High Court found it factually distinguishable from the present case, where:

The senior citizen does not need financial support.
The eviction is not tied to any maintenance need or plan (e.g., generating rent).

VII. Court’s Legal Reasoning

A. Maintainability of the Application under Sections 4 and 5

The Court’s first decisive step is to examine whether the senior citizen’s application under Section 5 was maintainable at all.

Section 4 restricts the right to apply for maintenance to a senior citizen who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or property.
Section 5 provides the procedural mechanism for such a maintenance claim.

Here, the Court noted:

The senior citizen categorically did not seek maintenance—and both the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal also recorded this fact.
There was no assertion that he was unable to maintain himself. On the contrary, the Petitioner alleged, and the record supported, that:
- He owned multiple properties (about nine in Maharashtra, apart from his residence).
- He earned substantial monthly income (allegedly over Rs. 10 lakhs).
- He resided in a large, comfortable flat with his wife and was financially “well-to-do”.

The Court therefore held:

…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 aspect, according to the Court, was completely overlooked by both the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal.

B. Eviction as an Incident of Maintenance, Not a Stand-Alone Remedy

Relying on S. Vanitha, Ranjana Makharia and Ritika Jasani, the Court reiterates a crucial legal principle:

The Act empowers tribunals to pass ancillary orders—including eviction—to secure maintenance and protection of the senior citizen.
However, eviction cannot be used as an independent remedy where the underlying claim is not maintenance and where the statutory conditions of Section 4 and Section 9 are not met.

The Court expressly notes that:

Eviction, as also held in S. Vanitha, 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.

In this case, since:

No maintenance was sought;
No neglect or refusal to maintain was alleged or found;
No financial or residential vulnerability of the senior citizen was established;

the order of eviction was declared to be contrary to the scheme of the Act.

C. Misuse of the Act to Settle Property Disputes

A significant part of the reasoning concerns the pending partition suit (Suit No. 1215 of 2019) filed by the son, in which he claims a share in a number of properties, including the subject premises, as part of an HUF.

The Court observes:

The senior citizen’s application under the Act was filed later in time.
Paragraphs 6 and 9 of the application show that the main grievance is that the son has filed a “false case” against him in the Bombay High Court (the partition suit).
On that basis, the senior citizen states he no longer wants the son to stay in the subject premises.

The Court concludes that the MWPSC application appears to be:

…nothing but a counter blast by the senior citizen to the partition suit instituted by the Petitioner…

In line with Ranjana Makharia and Nitin Rajendra Gupta, the Court emphasises that:

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’ proprietary rights remain sub-judice before the competent civil court.

D. Absence of Neglect, Refusal to Maintain, or Harassment

The Court observes that:

There are no allegations of physical or mental cruelty, abuse or harassment by the son. The only allegation is one of “mental pressure” due to the son filing “false cases” (i.e., civil proceedings).
There is no assertion that the son has neglected or refused to maintain the senior citizen.
The senior citizen does not, in fact, ask for maintenance, acknowledging, through conduct and pleadings, his financial self-sufficiency.

Under Section 9, and as clarified in Ritika Jasani, the Tribunal is required to find that the senior citizen has suffered neglect or refusal to maintain. That was entirely absent here.

This omission further undermines the legality of the eviction order.

E. Assessment of Residence, Convenience, and Competing Hardships

The senior citizen’s justification for wanting the bungalow was framed as a matter of “convenience” due to his ailments and need for medical treatment. The Court finds this assertion:

Vague and bereft of particulars.
Unsupported by any explanation why his current 1600 sq. ft., four-bedroom flat with lift access is unsuitable.
Somewhat incongruous, since the bungalow is a ground plus one upper floor structure; for a person with difficulty walking, this does not obviously represent a more convenient arrangement, especially when he has never lived there.

On the flip side, the Court notes:

The Petitioner is unemployed and, if evicted, would have no other residence, whereas the senior citizen has multiple properties.
The senior citizen had previously given a written declaration (2 January 2013) allowing the Petitioner and his wife to reside and conduct business from the subject premises indefinitely and rent-free.
Documentary correspondence suggests that the son, not the father, has been bearing the expenses (tax, water, electricity, maintenance) of the bungalow.

The Court concludes that both the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal failed to weigh these competing hardships, thereby misdirecting themselves.

F. Errors of the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal

The High Court identifies several key errors:

Failure to address the jurisdictional precondition under Section 4—whether the senior citizen is unable to maintain himself.
Proceeding to order eviction in the complete absence of any claim to maintenance.
Ignoring the absence of allegations/findings of neglect, refusal to maintain, or harassment.
Disregarding the pending partition suit and the senior citizen’s own statement (recorded in 2019) not to part with possession of the subject premises during its pendency.
Accepting at face value the senior citizen's vague plea of “convenience” for residing in the bungalow, despite his never having resided there before.

The Court characterises the orders as contrary to the scheme of the Act and therefore liable to be quashed.

VIII. Clarifying Complex Concepts and Legal Terminology

1. “Beneficial Statute”

A “beneficial statute” is a law enacted primarily to benefit a specific class—here, parents and senior citizens. Courts interpret such statutes:

Broadly in favour of the protected class when the statutory conditions are met.
But not so broadly as to allow abuse or misuse to harm others’ legitimate rights or bypass due process (e.g., civil suits over property).

The MWPSC Act is beneficial, but as this judgment stresses, beneficial does not mean unbounded.

2. “Summary Proceedings”

The Act contemplates summary procedures—simplified and speedy, without the full rigour of regular civil trials. However, even in summary proceedings:

Basic principles of natural justice apply (notice, hearing, reasoned decision).
Tribunals must still determine key factual predicates—such as entitlement to maintenance, ownership, and neglect/refusal.

The judgment makes clear that “summary” does not mean “cursory” or “mechanical”.

3. “HUF” and “Karta”

A Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is a legal concept under Hindu law where a family holds property jointly. The Karta is the head (usually the senior male) managing HUF affairs and property.

The Petitioner’s partition suit alleges that the senior citizen, as Karta, holds various properties (including the bungalow) as HUF assets, in which the son claims a share. If correct, the son may have rights of co-ownership and residence. This makes the summary eviction order especially problematic, as it potentially affects proprietary rights that should be resolved in civil proceedings.

4. “Counter-blast”

“Counter-blast” is a colloquial but recognised term in judicial reasoning, used for a legal action that appears to be a direct reaction or retaliation to an earlier action. The Court here concludes that the senior citizen’s application under the Act was a counter-blast to the son’s partition suit—seeking to evict the son summarily while title issues were still pending.

5. “Suo motu”

“Suo motu” means “on its own motion”. Under Section 5, a Tribunal may, on its own initiative, take cognizance and initiate proceedings for maintenance of a senior citizen. This power exists to protect vulnerable seniors who may not be in a position to apply themselves.

6. Eviction vs. Proprietary Rights

Eviction under the MWPSC Act is a protective measure (e.g., to remove an abusive or exploitative child from the senior citizen’s residence). It is distinct from:

A full adjudication of title or ownership to immovable property, and
A declaration of shares in HUF or ancestral property.

Where property disputes and competing ownership claims are pending before a civil court, tribunals under the Act must be careful not to pre-empt or undermine those proceedings through sweeping eviction orders unrelated to maintenance.

IX. Impact and Future Implications

1. For MWPSC Tribunals and Appellate Authorities

This judgment sends a clear message to Maintenance Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals in Maharashtra:

Screen applications for maintainability:
- Has the senior citizen pleaded and shown that he is unable to maintain himself?
- Is there a claim for maintenance or at least a clear need for support?
Do not treat the Act as a property eviction statute. Eviction can only be ordered when:
- Necessary to secure effective maintenance or protection; and
- Statutory predicates under Sections 4, 5, and 9 are satisfied.
Consider competing hardships and rights:
- Alternative accommodation available to the senior citizen vs. the child.
- Whether the senior citizen is financially dependent on the child.
- Whether civil proceedings about title or HUF property are pending.

2. For Senior Citizens Seeking Relief

The decision does not weaken genuine protections for seniors. Instead, it clarifies:

Where a senior citizen is financially and residentially vulnerable, and children neglect/refuse to maintain them, tribunals can and should grant robust relief, including eviction if necessary for protection.
However, where the senior citizen is financially independent and not seeking maintenance, the Act cannot be used primarily as a tool to evict children from disputed property.

3. For Children/Relatives Living in Senior Citizens’ Property

Children often fear that the MWPSC Act will invariably favour the senior citizen in eviction disputes. This judgment offers nuance:

Children who are abusive, exploitative, or neglectful can still be evicted under the Act, particularly when the senior citizen’s safety or subsistence is at risk.
However, where children have a plausible claim to a share (e.g., HUF property) or have long-standing permissive occupation and the senior citizen is not in need of maintenance, tribunals must proceed with caution and fairness.

4. Harmonisation with Civil Proceedings

The judgment reinforces that:

The MWPSC Act and civil court jurisdiction co-exist and must be harmonised.
The Act cannot be allowed to circumvent or pre-empt pending civil suits concerning title, partition, or HUF status.
Tribunals should avoid passing orders that effectively determine proprietary rights in a summary forum, especially when the same issues are sub-judice.

5. Precedential Value

As a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court:

It is binding on all subordinate courts and MWPSC Tribunals within the State of Maharashtra.
It will likely be treated as a persuasive authority by High Courts in other States, particularly on the limited and ancillary nature of eviction powers under the MWPSC Act.

X. Conclusion

Jitendra Gorakh Megh v. Additional Collector & Anr. is a significant addition to the jurisprudence on the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court crystallises and reinforces a key doctrinal point:

Eviction under the MWPSC Act is not a stand-alone remedy. It may be ordered only as an incident to enforcing a genuine right of maintenance and protection, and not in the absence of any maintenance claim or need.

The decision:

Reaffirms that the statutory scheme of Sections 4, 5, and 9 is centred on the senior citizen’s inability to maintain himself and the child’s neglect or refusal.
Warns against using this benevolent legislation as a shortcut for evicting children in the context of broader and more complex property disputes.
Imposes a duty on Tribunals to scrutinise maintainability, financial status, residence, and competing hardships, even within the framework of summary proceedings.

In striking down the eviction orders, the Bombay High Court does not dilute the protective shield afforded to vulnerable seniors; rather, it ensures that this shield is not transformed into a sword in property battles. The judgment thus promotes a more balanced, principled, and purposive application of the MWPSC Act, preserving its welfare character while aligning it with broader notions of fairness and due process.