Senior Citizens Act Is for Maintenance, Not a Shortcut to Eviction: Calcutta High Court Restrains Tribunal’s Overreach

“Sections 4 and 5 Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be Used to Recover Property” – In a significant reportable judgment Calcutta High Court, through Justice Krishna Rao, delivered a pointed clarification on the limits of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Deciding WPA , Court held that while the Act empowers the Tribunal to grant maintenance, it does not authorise eviction of children from property in proceedings under Sections 4 and 5.

The Court set aside the direction of the Sub-Divisional Officer directing the son to vacate the premises, while leaving intact the order of maintenance. At the same time, it dismissed the mother’s writ petition seeking implementation of the Tribunal’s order, observing that Section 11 of the Act provides a specific enforcement mechanism.

The ruling is a crucial exposition on the statutory scheme of the 2007 Act, the scope of eviction under Section 23, and the maintainability of writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Maintenance Claim Turns Into Eviction Order

The mother, Smt. Pushpa Sharma, had approached the Tribunal under Section 5 of the Act seeking Rs. 30,000 per month as maintenance and reimbursement of medical expenses. By order dated 6th September, 2024, the Tribunal directed both sons not only to pay maintenance but also to vacate the three-storied residential building within three months.

The sons challenged the eviction direction, contending that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction. The mother, on the other hand, approached the High Court seeking implementation of the order, alleging non-compliance.

“Tribunal Can Only Grant Maintenance” – Court Deciphers the Scheme of the Act

Justice Krishna Rao undertook a detailed reading of Chapter II of the Act and the Statement of Objects and Reasons. The Court observed that the legislation was enacted to provide “a simple, inexpensive and speedy provision to claim maintenance for parents and senior citizens.”

Interpreting Sections 4 and 5, the Court made a categorical declaration:

“A reading of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 2007, it is clear that Tribunal constituted under the Act can only pass an order of maintenance in favour of senior citizens or parents. Neither there is any direct or indirect reference of eviction nor do these provisions contemplate any such order to be passed by the Tribunal.”

The Court further clarified that these provisions cannot be converted into tools for recovery of possession:

“Sections 4 and 5 cannot be used by the senior citizen to recover property from any person, whether it is a child or relative of such a senior citizen.”

On this reasoning, the eviction portion of the Tribunal’s order was set aside as being beyond statutory authority.

“Section 23 Can Be Invoked Only in Specific Contingencies”

The Court examined whether eviction could be justified under Section 23 of the Act, which provides for declaring transfers void where property has been gifted subject to a condition of providing basic amenities and such condition is breached.

After setting out the statutory requirements, the Court held that none of the essential ingredients were pleaded or present. There was no conditional transfer attracting Section 23. Therefore, “the applicability of Section 23 is out of question.”

This pronouncement reinforces that eviction under the Senior Citizens Act is not a general power but a narrowly tailored remedy tied to specific statutory preconditions.

“Statutory Ceiling Cannot Exceed Rs. 10,000 Per Month” – Yet Maintenance Left Undisturbed

Section 9(2) stipulates that the maximum maintenance allowance shall not exceed Rs. 10,000 per month. The Tribunal had directed one son to pay Rs. 15,000 per month.

The Court noted the statutory ceiling but observed that the son had confined his challenge to the eviction direction and was not aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance. Consequently, the Court refrained from interfering with the amount while clarifying the statutory position.

“Enforcement Lies Under Section 11” – Mother’s Writ Dismissed

Addressing the mother’s writ petition for implementation, the Court pointed to Section 11, which provides that maintenance orders may be enforced in the manner prescribed for execution under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Since the petitioner had not invoked the statutory enforcement mechanism, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction. WPA No. 10504 of 2025 was dismissed with liberty to approach the Tribunal for enforcement.

“Orders of Tribunal Amenable to Article 226” – Clarifying the Constitutional Position

A significant portion of the judgment addresses the maintainability of writ petitions by children and relatives against orders of the Tribunal. Referring to the Division Bench decision in Smt. Mamata Sarki, the Court held that since no statutory appeal lies to children under Section 16, a writ petition is maintainable.

On the distinction between Articles 226 and 227, the Court relied upon T.C. Basappa, Umaji Keshao Meshram, and Radhey Shyam. It emphasised that certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate, and can be invoked where a tribunal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction.

The Court unequivocally held:

“The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunals are not civil courts and the orders cannot be treated as judicial orders.”

Thus, the order of the Maintenance Tribunal was held to be amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Welfare Law Cannot Become an Instrument of Jurisdictional Excess

The Calcutta High Court has drawn a clear boundary: the Senior Citizens Act is a maintenance legislation, not a substitute for civil eviction proceedings. While ensuring dignity and protection for senior citizens, the Court has cautioned Tribunals against overstepping statutory limits.

By setting aside the eviction direction and directing parties to statutory remedies for enforcement, the Court reaffirmed that “certiorari will not issue as the cloak of an appeal in disguise,” but will intervene where jurisdiction is exceeded.

The ruling stands as a reminder that benevolent legislation must operate within the framework defined by Parliament and cannot be expanded by judicial assumption of power.

Date of Decision: 18/02/2026