Archive · 27 Aug 2026
Bombay High Court Upholds Son’s Eviction from Parents’ Pune Flat
The Bombay High Court decided that elderly parents should be able to use and benefit from their own property.
Their son was living in a flat connected to the family’s property.
The parents said they needed the property, rent, and money for medicines and other expenses.
The son argued that the property belonged to the wider family and that he had a right to live there.
The court said his ownership claim had not yet been decided by a civil court.
Until then, the parents could ask for protection under the law for senior citizens.
The court said this protection can apply even when parents and children live in separate flats.
It ordered the son to leave within four weeks.
The order did not decide whether the son’s wife had separate rights or whether his partition case would succeed.
The Bombay High Court upheld an order directing a son to vacate his senior citizen parents’ Pune flat.
Justice Amit Borkar ruled that parents may seek eviction even without explicitly requesting financial maintenance.
The court said maintenance includes peaceful residence and beneficial enjoyment of a senior citizen’s property.
The son claimed the flat was joint family property and challenged his parents’ ownership and eviction request.
The court ordered Kishor to hand over peaceful possession within four weeks without deciding his pending partition suit or his wife’s independent rights.
- Who
- A senior citizen couple and their son, Kishor; the case was heard by Justice Amit Borkar of the Bombay High Court.
- What
- The court upheld an order requiring the son to vacate his parents’ flat and ruled that their eviction application was maintainable under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
- When
- The Bombay High Court ruling was issued on August 21; the son was directed to leave within four weeks.
- Where
- The dispute concerned a flat in Pune and was decided by the Bombay High Court.
- Why
- The parents said they needed possession, rental income, and financial support for rent, medicines, medical treatment, and loan-related expenses.
Parents’ position
Son’s position
Ownership and occupation
Parents’ position
The parents said they owned the property and sought possession because the son’s continued occupation affected their use of it and their ability to obtain income.
Son’s position
The son argued that the property was constructed from income from ancestral properties, constituted joint family property, and that his possession was neither forcible nor unauthorised.
Financial needs
Parents’ position
The parents said they could not afford rent or medical expenses, were receiving no rent from the occupied premises, and needed possession and income from the property.
Son’s position
The son challenged the eviction and maintained that he had a right to reside in the separate flat where he lived with his wife.
Effect of the court order
Parents’ position
The parents received an order for peaceful possession under the senior-citizen protection law.
Son’s position
The son’s pending partition suit was not decided, and the court clarified that the eviction order did not prejudice his wife’s independent rights.
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Judge
- Justice Amit Borkar
- Law involved
- Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
- Initial authority
- The Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected the parents’ application on February 8, 2019.
- Appeal decision
- The Additional Collector, Pune, allowed the parents’ appeal on June 27, 2019.
- Deadline
- Kishor was directed to hand over peaceful possession within four weeks.
- Unresolved issues
- The court did not decide the son’s alleged proprietary rights, pending partition suit, or his wife’s independent rights.