Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Senior Citizen’s Right to Home, Orders Eviction of Son-in-Law
In a significant ruling affirming senior citizens' rights over their self-acquired properties, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ appeal by Dilip Marmat, directing him to vacate his father-in-law’s house within 30 days. The Court underscored that elderly individuals have the right to a peaceful, income-generating residence, reinforcing the protective intent of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Case Background
Dilip Marmat, the son-in-law of the elderly respondent, had been living in his house since the death of his wife in 2018. Claiming he had invested in the construction, Marmat argued he had an adverse possession claim over the property. However, his father-in-law, a retired BHEL employee, sought his eviction under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, citing harassment and lack of support.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) ordered Marmat’s eviction in May 2022, a decision upheld by the Collector in August 2022 and later by a Single Judge of the High Court. Marmat’s final appeal before the Division Bench also failed.
Key Legal Issues Considered
1. Does a son-in-law fall under the definition of "children" in the Act?
Marmat argued that as a son-in-law, he wasn’t covered under Section 2(a) of the Act.
The Court held that the definition is broad enough to include dependents like him.
2. Can Marmat claim ownership due to financial contributions?
He contended that his investment in the house construction gave him a financial stake.
The Court ruled that a permissive transfer can be revoked if the senior citizen needs the property.
3. Can a permissive occupant be evicted without a transfer deed?
Marmat cited Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi (2022) to argue that eviction requires a formal transfer deed.
The Court relied on Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit (2025), stating that tribunals can order eviction to protect senior citizens.
Court’s Verdict
A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain ruled:
Marmat had no legal right over the house.
The Act prioritizes the welfare of senior citizens, ensuring they live peacefully in their own homes.
The definition of "children" under the Act includes dependents like Marmat.
Eviction was justified as the respondent needed the house for financial stability and to care for his paralyzed wife.
Final Order
Marmat was given 30 days to vacate. If he failed, the local SHO was directed to remove his belongings and hand over the property to the elderly respondent.
With this ruling, the Court reinforced that a senior citizen’s right to a secure home cannot be overshadowed by claims of permissive occupancy.
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
