MUMBAI, Dec. 9 -- The Bombay High Court on Monday set aside two orders passed by the Senior Citizen Tribunal directing a 53-year-old man and his wife to vacate an Andheri bungalow owned by his 75-year-old father, a retired IAS officer. The court held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, enacted as a beneficial legislation to protect vulnerable senior citizens, cannot be used as a shortcut for eviction of children when the foundational requirement of seeking maintenance or alleging harassment is absent. The dispute stems from a ground-plus-one bungalow in Andheri that the father had allowed his son to occupy. According to the father, this permission was granted purely out of humanity, love and affection. The father and his wife reside in another 1,600 sq ft apartment in Andheri, equipped with a nurse, maid, driver and other staff for his daily needs. In March 2024, the father approached the Senior Citizen Tribunal seeking an eviction order, alleging that his son had taken advantage of his old age and ill health to encroach upon the entire bungalow. He claimed the son was renting out part of the premises for the shooting of television serials without permission and preventing him from using the house. The father cited medical issues including diabetes, arthritis and severe leg pain, and said it would be convenient for him to shift to the ground floor of the bungalow. He further alleged that his son had filed false complaints against him, adding to his mental stress. The son, however, opposed the eviction plea and submitted that his father was financially independent, owned multiple residential and commercial properties, and had no need to rely on him for maintenance. He claimed that his father had executed a written declaration in January 2013, expressly permitting him and his wife to stay in the bungalow and conduct their business activities from the premises for as long as they wished. He argued that the eviction proceedings were not initiated out of necessity but were linked to a larger property dispute already pending before the high court. On August 26, 2025, the Senior Citizen Tribunal ordered the son's eviction within 30 days. The son challenged the order before the Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the eviction on October 1, 2025. This prompted him to move the high court, where he reiterated that he had no objection to his father occupying the ground floor and sought permission to continue residing on the first floor. Before the high court, the father's counsel submitted that the property indisputably belonged to the father and that the pendency of the son's civil suit for partition could not prevent a senior citizen from invoking the Act for eviction. However, a division bench of Justices RI Chagla and Farhan P Dubash observed that the father's application contained no allegation of harassment, cruelty or denial of maintenance, grounds central to the Senior Citizens Act. While the Act permits eviction in genuine cases, the judges said such powers cannot be used without fulfilling statutory requirements. They noted that the father had never lived in the bungalow and questioned his sudden desire to move there despite having a fully serviced apartment, rejecting his claim of sentimental attachment. The court said the eviction plea appeared to be a "counter-blast" to the son's 2019 partition suit and stressed that eviction would leave the son without a home, while the father owned multiple properties. Setting aside both orders, the bench held that the Act cannot be invoked to settle family property disputes....