Calcutta HC Quashes SDM's Eviction Order: Senior Citizens Act Cannot Oust Tenancy Law

The Calcutta High Court's Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri held that Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be used to evict a tenant, setting aside an ex parte SDM order.

The Calcutta High Court's Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri, in a revisional application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has quashed an ex parte order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Siliguri, directing a tenant to vacate a residential premises by 31 July 2026. Justice Smita Das De, sitting singly, held that the SDM had no jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to adjudicate a landlord-tenant dispute or to direct the eviction of a tenant. The appropriate remedy, the Court held, lies before a competent civil court under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The order further found that the ex parte eviction direction was passed without notice to the tenant, violating the principles of natural justice.

How the Eviction Order Came to Be Passed

The opposite party, a senior citizen, is the landlord of the petitioner, Anna Sing @ Anan Singha. On 5 May 2025, the landlord filed an application before the SDM, Siliguri under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging that the tenant was causing mental disturbances.

The petitioner contended before the High Court that the application dated 5 May 2025 was never served upon him. Despite this, the SDM, Siliguri passed an ex parte order on 18 June 2026 in Misc. Petition Case No. 22 of 2025, directing the petitioner to vacate the house in question on or before 31 July 2026. The order was served on the petitioner through the concerned police station on 21 July 2026.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed CO/111/2026 before the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri.

The Core Jurisdictional Question

The central issue the Court identified was whether the SDM, Siliguri had jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to direct the eviction of a tenant in a landlord-tenant dispute.

Counsel for the petitioner advanced two distinct grounds. The first was procedural: the foundational application dated 5 May 2025 was never served on the petitioner, and the impugned ex parte order was passed without any opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The second was substantive: Section 22 of the Act cannot be invoked in a landlord-tenant dispute. Counsel urged that the remedy for eviction of a tenant lies under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 before a competent civil court, and that the SDM had acted wholly without jurisdiction.

In support, counsel placed reliance on two decisions—Smt. S. Vanitha v. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3822 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 29760 of 2019), and Jitendra Gorakh Megh v. Additional Collector & Appellate Tribunal, Writ Petition (L) No. 31614 of 2025—in which the Supreme Court held that the senior citizens Act cannot be used as a tool for eviction of tenants and cannot override tenancy laws.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Das De began by characterising the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to provide more effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens as guaranteed under the Constitution. She observed that the entire scheme of the Act deals with the obligation of children and relatives to maintain senior citizens.

The Court drew a sharp distinction between the class of persons the Act was meant to address and the position of a tenant. The Act, the Court held, is a welfare legislation enacted for providing maintenance and protection to parents and senior citizens from their children or legal heirs. It has no application to disputes between a landlord and a tenant.

Turning to Section 22 specifically, the Court held that while it confers power on the District Magistrate to ensure protection of life and property of senior citizens, the preamble and scheme of the Act clearly indicate that it applies to cases where there is a legal and moral obligation to maintain senior citizens. A tenant does not fall within that category.

On the facts, the Court recorded that the relationship between the petitioner and the opposite party was admittedly that of landlord and tenant. The application filed under Section 22 seeking eviction was therefore held to be de hors the mandate of the statute. Section 22 does not confer any jurisdiction upon the SDM to adjudicate title or to pass an order of eviction against a tenant, and the direction to vacate by 31 July 2026 was found to be in excess of jurisdiction and unsustainable in law.

The Court also held that the natural justice contention merited consideration, recording that the order appeared to have been passed ex parte without service of notice on the petitioner.

Relief Granted and Direction to the Opposite Party

Justice Das De allowed the revisional application in its entirety. The impugned order dated 25 June 2026 passed by the SDM, Siliguri in Misc. Petition Case No. 22 of 2025 was quashed and set aside.

The opposite party was given liberty to avail the appropriate legal remedy for eviction of the petitioner before the competent civil court in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. No order as to costs was made.