Summary: In a family argument, the Bombay High Court canceled an eviction order against Jitendra Gorakh Megh, who was told to leave his father’s house in Mumbai. The case focused on the use of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The case involves Jitendra Gorakh Megh, a 53-year-old unemployed man, and his father, Gorakh Govind Megh, a 75-year-old retired government officer. The father wanted his son to leave a bungalow in Andheri, Mumbai. On March 26, 2024, the father asked for help under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, saying his son was causing him stress and using the house to make money.
On August 26, 2025, the Tribunal told Jitendra to leave the bungalow within 30 days. The decision was based on claims that the father needed the house because of health problems. However, the father did not ask his son for money.
"The senior citizen has not demanded any money for maintenance and therefore, there is no need to comment on the same."
Jitendra disagreed with the eviction order and appealed, but it was supported by the Appellate Tribunal on October 1, 2025. Unhappy with this, he went to the Bombay High Court. Judges R.I. Chagla and Farhan P. Dubash looked at the case and noticed that the father never lived in the bungalow and had other houses.
"The senior citizen does not reside in the subject premises... In fact, the senior citizen has never resided in the subject premises."
The High Court found that the eviction order was not connected to any money support claim, which is important under the Act. They saw that the father was financially independent and there were no claims of harassment against Jitendra.
"The Act cannot be (mis)used by the senior citizen as a tool for summary eviction without the fulfilment of statutory requirements."
On December 8, 2025, the court canceled the eviction order, allowing Jitendra to stay. The judges stressed the importance of following the Act's rules and making sure everyone is treated fairly.
"The appellate order dated 1st October 2025... and the eviction order dated 26th August 2025... are both, hereby quashed and set aside."
This case shows how complicated family arguments can be and the importance of laws in solving them fairly.
