Eviction Proceedings Must Follow Principles of Natural Justice: Telangana High Court Quashes Eviction Order under Senior Citizens Act

In a significant decision,  Telangana High Court quashed an eviction order issued under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court held that failure to provide the appellant (son) an opportunity to submit explanations or supporting documents before passing the eviction order violated the principles of natural justice.

The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, remitted the matter back to the District Collector for fresh consideration. The Court emphasized, “Any order passed in violation of natural justice principles cannot be sustained, as such orders are void.”

“Failure to Follow Due Process Under Senior Citizens Act Invalidates Eviction Orders”: Telangana HC
The High Court underscored that eviction proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act must comply with Rule 21(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011 (adopted by Telangana). The Court stated, “Respondent No. 2 [District Collector] acted in violation of the procedural safeguards by not providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.”

On January 7, 2025, the Telangana High Court quashed the eviction order issued by the District Collector against the petitioner, Bajranglal Agarwal, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The eviction order was passed at the behest of the petitioner’s mother (Respondent No. 3), who alleged harassment and sought the appellant’s eviction from the family property.

The Court allowed Writ Petition No. 34257 of 2024, finding procedural lapses and violations of natural justice in the eviction process. It also dismissed Writ Appeal No. 1202 of 2024 as infructuous.

The dispute revolved around a residential property located in Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, purchased in 1988 and registered in the name of the petitioner’s mother. The petitioner, his two brothers, and his parents resided in the house until 2022, when disputes arose. The mother executed a gift deed transferring the entire property to one of the sons, Respondent No. 4, and later initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner, alleging harassment.

The District Collector passed an eviction order on November 20, 2024, directing the petitioner to vacate the property within 30 days. The petitioner challenged the order on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, procedural violations, and breach of natural justice.

The High Court found that the eviction proceedings were conducted in violation of natural justice. Justice J. Sreenivas Rao noted, “The appellant was not given a fair opportunity to present his case or submit documents in response to the show-cause notice. The eviction order was passed solely based on the pleadings and documents of Respondent No. 3, without giving due consideration to the appellant’s defense.”

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Addl. Member Board of Revenue (AIR 1963 SC 786), which held that quasi-judicial orders passed without adherence to natural justice are void.

The appellant also raised jurisdictional challenges, arguing that his mother (Respondent No. 3) had transferred the property to another son (Respondent No. 4) via a gift deed and thus lacked standing to seek eviction. The Court clarified, “Jurisdictional issues must be adjudicated by the District Collector during rehearing without being influenced by any prior findings.”

The Court further addressed the maintainability of the writ petition despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Act. The Bench observed, “Alternative remedies are not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, particularly in cases involving violations of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction.”

The judgment highlighted the welfare-oriented purpose of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. The Court reiterated that the Act provides remedies to senior citizens who face harassment or neglect by their children. However, it emphasized that procedural compliance and fairness are essential in such cases to ensure a balanced adjudication of rights.

The Bench referred to D. Venkata Krishna Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2012 SCC OnLine AP 704), noting that the violation of natural justice is a valid exception to the rule requiring exhaustion of alternative remedies.

The Telangana High Court quashed the eviction order dated November 20, 2024, and remitted the matter back to the District Collector with the following directions:

The appellant (son) was directed to submit an explanation along with supporting documents to the District Collector within two weeks.
The District Collector was instructed to decide the matter afresh within six weeks, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice, including providing all parties a personal hearing.
The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the jurisdiction of the District Collector and left it open for adjudication.
The Court stated, “The District Collector shall adjudicate the jurisdictional issues without being influenced by previous findings or the content of this order.”

The High Court dismissed Writ Appeal No. 1202 of 2024 as infructuous, noting that the subsequent eviction order had overtaken the appeal.

The Telangana High Court’s decision reinforces the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in eviction proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. While upholding the rights of senior citizens to seek eviction under the Act, the judgment ensures that procedural safeguards and due process are not sacrificed.

Date of Decision: January 7, 2025