Bengaluru: Karnataka high court has come to the rescue of a widow, who had been ordered to be evicted from a family property following a protracted fight with her aged mother-in-law.Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed a petition filed by LP Veena, a resident of Kamalanagar, holding that eviction under Senior Citizens Act is “not an automatic consequence” of an application filed before Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal.“The power (to evict) is discretionary. Tribunal must be satisfied, and must record reasons to show eviction is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen,” the judge said, quashing the eviction order in early August.The court observed that merely establishing that a property belongs to a senior citizen or another family member was not sufficient to justify eviction when bona fide civil claims were pending.The eviction order had been passed by the assistant commissioner and chairperson of the tribunal, Bengaluru North, directing Veena to vacate the ground and first floors of a property following a complaint by mother-in-law Mahadevamma.Mahadevamma and her late husband Nanjundaiah had three sons — Mahesh Kumar, Ravi Kumar and Sharath Kumar. Nanjundaiah died in 2000, while Ravi Kumar died in 2008. Veena is the wife of Sharath and the couple has two sons.The dispute concerns a property at Saneguruvanahalli. Following Nanjundaiah’s death, the property was transferred to Mahadevamma. Mahesh constructed a ground-plus-three-floor building on the property in 2011, after Sharath Kumar relinquished his rights over it in 2010.As Sharath had no independent source of income, Mahesh executed a registered gift deed on May 3, 2018, in favour of Sharath and Mahadevamma, with an understanding Sharath would take care of his mother. Sharath died in January 2020.Subsequently, Mahadevamma executed a registered cancellation deed on Feb 16, 2021, asserting Mahesh was the absolute owner of the property. Further, Mahadevamma alleged Veena had forcibly “driven her out” of the premises and approached Senior Citizens Tribunal seeking her eviction.On April 17, 2025, the tribunal directed Veena to quit and vacate the ground and first floors.Veena challenged the order before the high court, contending her husband had a one-third share in the family property and that a civil suit filed by her was pending before the competent civil court.Justice Govindaraj held that the pendency of the civil suit did not deprive the tribunal of jurisdiction to entertain Mahadevamma’s application. However, it prevented the tribunal from ordering Veena’s eviction without adjudication of claims by the competent civil court.“The Tribunal is empowered to direct eviction as an incidental measure for securing the maintenance, protection and welfare of a senior citizen. The Tribunal must consider whether the object of the Act can be achieved by a lesser measure, such as an order of maintenance under Sections 4 and 5 or an order restraining the occupant from harassing the senior citizen and interfering in her day-to-day life,” Justice Govindaraj said.
