Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs Ramchandra Goswami And Anr on 27 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/10
GAHC010039652026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/56/2026
BHASKAR JYOTI GOSWAMI AND ANR
SON OF SRI RAMCHANDRA GOSWAMI, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 7,
REHABARI SUHAGPUR, (NEAR ARYA HOSPITAL), P.O.- REHABARI,
GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781008.
2: SMT. TRISHA GOSWAMI
WIFE OF SRI BHASKAR JYOTI GOSWAMI
RESIDENT OF RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 7
REHABARI SUHAGPUR
(NEAR ARYA HOSPITAL)
P.O. REHABARI
GUWAHATI
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN- 78100
VERSUS
RAMCHANDRA GOSWAMI AND ANR
SON OF LATE BHUDHAR GOSWAMI, RESIDENT OF RESIDENT OF HOUSE
NO. 7, REHABARI SUHAGPUR, (NEAR ARYA HOSPITAL), P.O. REHABARI,
GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781008
2:THE PRESIDING OFFICER
MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL
KAMRUP (METRO)
GUWAHATI
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D DEKA, P BHOWMICK,MR. M DAS,MR. A K BHUYAN
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV. (FOR CAVEATOR), GA, ASSAM,H
BAISHYA (FOR CAVEATOR),MR J SINGH (FOR CAVEATOR)
Page No.# 2/10
-BEFORE-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan
ORDER
27.02.2026 Heard Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.
2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.01.2026, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Kamrup(M), Guwahati (constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007), in W.P. Case No. 4717/2024.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 29.01.2026, the learned Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Kamrup (M), Guwahati ('Tribunal', for short) has directed the petitioners to vacate and hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the residential premises situated at Ulubari, Guwahati to the respondent No. 1, within 30 days, with further direction for police assisted eviction.
4. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 1 herein had initially approached the learned Tribunal, alleging that his son and daughter-in-law had subjected him to continuous harassment, intimidation and hostile behaviour, as a result of which he was compelled to leave his own residence and reside in rented premises, hotels and thereby, affecting his safety, Page No.# 3/10 peace, dignity and mental well-being. Mr. Bhuyan also submits that while hearing the said petition, vide order dated 20.07.2024, the learned Tribunal had recorded a finding that the respondent No. 1 had sufficient means to maintain himself and rejected the claim for maintenance, and then assailing the said order, the respondent No. 1 had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 4217/2024, 2024, and thereafter, vide judgment and order dated 14.07.2025, this Court was pleased to set aside the order dated 20.07.2024, primarily on the ground that the Maintenance Officer had acted as a Tribunal without having jurisdiction and granted liberty to the respondent No.1 to approach the jurisdictional Maintenance Tribunal. Mr. Bhuyan further submits that thereafter, the respondent No. 1 had filed a fresh application before the learned Maintenance Tribunal, alleging the same facts and seeking eviction of the petitioners, and thereafter, the petitioners had filed their objection and the petitioners were informed that the next date of hearing would be notified.
4.1. Mr. Bhuyan also submits that no oral hearing thereafter took place, no enquiry was conducted, and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to advance their submissions, and thereafter the learned Tribunal had proceeded to pass the impugned order, recording that it had heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents, and thereafter, directed eviction of the petitioners with police assistance and such direction, issued without hearing the petitioners, contravenes the provision of Sub-Section 3 to Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ('Act of 2007', for short).
4.2. It is also the contention of Mr. Bhuyan that the impugned order dated 29.01.2026, was passed without hearing the petitioners and as such, the same is contrary to the principles of natural justice, and the same requires Page No.# 4/10 interference of this Court. Further Mr. Bhuyan contended that in the impugned order dated 29.01.2026, the petitioners were granted 30 days time and unless the impugned order is stayed, they will be evicted and in that case, serious prejudice would be caused to them, and under such circumstances, Mr. Bhuyan has contended to stay the impugned order dated 29.01.2026, till disposal of the present petition.
4.3. In support of his submission, Mr. Bhuyan has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
(i) Samtola Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 669.
5. Per contra, Mr. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 1, submits that the impugned order was passed after hearing both the parties, under Section 22 of the 'Act of 2007', and the same is not an order under Section 5 of the Act, which provides for granting of maintenance and the case in hand is no maintenance was granted. Mr. Konwar also submits that the respondent No. 1 had constructed the building with his lifelong earnings and deposits, and also by taking loan, and he is a senior citizen and at the last stage, he was ousted by the petitioners herein, who happened to be the own son and daughter-in-law of the respondent No.1, from his own residence and the on such count, they deserves no sympathy and the also vehemently opposed in staying the impugned order as it involves the safety, security and dignity of the respondent No.1, who is a senior citizen and since the time of his ousting from his own residence he has been residing in rented premises and hotels. Mr. Konwar further submits that the impugned order dated 29.01.2026, suffers from no irregularity or illegality requiring any interference of this Court, Page No.# 5/10 and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss this petition.
5.1. In support of his submission, Mr. Konwar has referred to the decisions:
(i) S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors., reported in (2021) 15 SCC 730.
(ii) Kamalakant Mishra vs. Additional Collector and Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2077.
(iii) Jaagdish Pitambar Pawar vs. Pitambar Pundalik Pawar and Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 3287.
(iv) Riddhi and Anr. vs. Pratibha and Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1690.
(v) Dinesh Bhanudas Chandanshive vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in (2024) 1 High Court Cases (Bom)
125.
(vi) Amritya Bhatia and Ors. Vs. Baljeet Singh Bhatia, reported in 2020 (2) M.P.L.J.
(vii) Dattatreuy Shivaji Mane vs. Lilabai Shivaji Mane, reported in 2018 (6) Mh.L.J.
(viii) Nayana Sudhir Shah and Ors. Vs. Sudhir Premji Shah and Ors., reported in 2020 (5) Mh.L.J.
(ix) Smt. Pachamma vs. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2017 KAR 1217.
(x) Ram Chandra Goswami vs. State of Assam and Ors., in WP(C) No. 1365/2024.
6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned order dated 29.01.2026, and also gone through the decisions referred by learned counsel for both the parties.
Page No.# 6/10
7. A careful perusal of the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 reveals that while passing the same, the learned Tribunal had heard the learned counsel for the applicant/senior citizen/respondent No. 1 herein and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/petitioners herein, and also perused the application, written objections, documents and materials on record, and thereafter, arrived at a conclusion that: (i) the applicant/respondent No. 1 herein, is a senior citizen entitled to statutory protection; (ii) his peaceful possession and dignity are being compromised; (iii) restoration of possession is necessary for protection of life and property of the applicant. And thereafter, passed the following order:-
"In exercise of powers conferred under Section 22 of the Act read with Rule 19 of the Rules of 2012, the application is ALLOWED, it is hereby ordered:
1. The Respondents shall vacate and hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the residential premises situated at Ulubari, Guwahati to the Applicant within 30 days from the date of this order.
2. The Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station shall provide necessary police assistance to ensure compliance with this order and to secure safe re-entry and peaceful possession of the Applicant into his residence.
3. The Respondents, their agents or any person claiming through them are restrained from interfering, directly or indirectly, with the Applicant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.
4. In the event of the non-compliance within the stipulated period, the District Administration and police authorities shall take appropriate coercive steps including eviction, in accordance with law.
Page No.# 7/10
5. No order as to costs.
Sd/ District Social Welfare Officer cum Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal Kamrup Metropolitan District"
8. It is to be noted here that the Act of 2007 is a beneficial and welfare legislation intended to secure food, residence, safety and dignity, well-being of parents and senior citizens. It also appears that Section 2(b) defines "Maintenance" to include food, residence and protection. Further, Section 22 casts a statutory obligation upon the State authorities to protect the life and property of the senior citizen. The Act is not contingent upon poverty or financial dependence, and even a financially independent senior citizen is entitled to protection when his safety and dignity are compromised.
9. Sub-section (3) to Section 5 of the Act of 2007, provides that on receipt of an application for maintenance under sub-section (1), after giving notice of the application to the children or relative and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry for determining the amount of maintenance.
10. In the case in hand, it appears that the impugned order was passed to implement the provision of the Act in exercise of powers conferred under Section 22 of the Act read with Rule 19 of the Rules of 2012. But, since the definition of the word 'maintenance' as per Section 2(b) includes provision for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment, and since vide impugned order dated 29.01.2026, provision for residence of the respondent was made by directing the petitioners herein to vacate and hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the residential premises situated at Ulubari, Guwahati to the respondent No.1 within 30 days from the date of the impugned order, it Page No.# 8/10 cannot be said that the impugned order is not passed under Sub-Section 3 to Section 5 of the Act.
11. It also appears that the petitioners herein are the son and daughter-in-law of the respondent No. 1 herein, who has been ousted from his own residence and he has presently been living in rented premises/hotels, and the learned Tribunal has arrived at a finding that he is living in a rented premises/hotels affecting his safety, peace, dignity and mental well-being, and thereafter, passed the impugned order, by exercising the powers under Section 22 of the Act of 1970.
12. Though, it is submitted by Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners that opportunity of being heard was not afforded to the petitioners as provided under sub-section (3) to Section 5 of the Act of 1970 and no enquiry was conducted, yet the same left this Court impressed, in as much as before passing the impugned order the learned Tribunal had heard the learned counsel for the applicant/senior citizen/respondent No. 1 herein and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/petitioners herein, and it has perused the application, written objections, documents and materials on record, and thereafter, arrived at a conclusion and issued the direction.
13. It is well settled in the case of S. Vanitha vs. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District reported in (2021) 15 SCC 730 that the Tribunal, under the Senior Citizens Act may also pass the order of eviction, if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizens, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act. Same view is taken in the case of Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Saran Dixit, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 787 also, but in the said case it has been emphasized that the Page No.# 9/10 Tribunal has to recorded reasons necessitating to order eviction so as to ensure the protection of the senior citizen.
14. In the instant case, it appears that the learned Tribunal has recorded reasons as under (i) the applicant/respondent No. 1 herein, is a senior citizen entitled to statutory protection; (ii) his peaceful possession and dignity are being compromised; (iii) restoration of possession is necessary for protection of life and property of the applicant.
15. The submissions so advanced by learned counsel for both the parties need further consideration. And as such detail discussion on the contentions being made including the decisions referred by learned counsel for both the parties, is found to be not required at this stage.
16. Let notice be issued to the respondents, returnable in two weeks. As Mr. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1, no formal notice is required to be issued to the said respondent. However, extra requisite copies of the petition be furnished to him during the course of the day.
17. Steps be taken upon the respondent No. 2 by way of speed post as well as by usual process within a week from today. The petitioners may also take steps by Dasti mode and thereafter, shall file an affidavit to that effect.
18. Considering the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, and also considering facts and circumstances on the record and further considering legislative intendment, i.e. the statement, object and reason of enacting the benevolent piece of legislation, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case could be demonstrated for granting any interim relief to the petitioners, at this stage. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant interim relief at this Page No.# 10/10 stage.
17. List the matter after two weeks.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant