Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a widow in a long-running property dispute with her aged mother-in-law, ruling that eviction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act is not an automatic consequence of an application before the Senior Citizens Tribunal.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed a petition filed by LP Veena of Kamalanagar and quashed an eviction order directing her to vacate the ground and first floors of a property in Saneguruvanahalli.

Court says eviction needs clear reasons

The court held that the power to evict under the Act is discretionary. A tribunal must be satisfied that eviction is necessary and expedient to protect and maintain the senior citizen and must record reasons for such an order.

Justice Govindaraj observed that merely establishing ownership of a property was not sufficient to justify eviction when genuine civil claims concerning the property were pending before a competent court.

Property dispute behind eviction order

The dispute involved Veena’s mother-in-law, Mahadevamma, and a family property transferred to her following the death of her husband Nanjundaiah.

Veena’s husband, Sharath Kumar, had relinquished his rights in the property in 2010. A registered gift deed was later executed in 2018 in favour of Sharath and Mahadevamma, with an understanding that Sharath would take care of his mother.

Sharath died in January 2020. Mahadevamma subsequently executed a cancellation deed and later approached the Senior Citizens Tribunal, alleging that Veena had driven her out of the premises.

The tribunal ordered Veena to vacate the ground and first floors in April 2025.

Civil court claims must also be considered

Veena challenged the order before the High Court, arguing that her late husband had a one-third share in the property and that her civil suit was pending.

The High Court held that the pending civil case did not prevent the tribunal from considering Mahadevamma’s application. However, it said the tribunal could not order eviction without the competent civil court adjudicating the disputed property claims.

The court also said the tribunal should consider less drastic measures, including maintenance orders or directions preventing harassment, before resorting to eviction.