Telangana High Court
Chilikuri Ajay Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 8 July, 2026
* THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
+ WRIT APPEAL NO.1053 OF 2025
%Dated 08.07.2026
# BETWEEN:
Chilikuri Ajay Kumar
...Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Telangana and Three Others
...Respondents
! Counsel for Appellant : Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior
Counsel representing Ms. Vedula
Chitralekha, learned counsel
^ Counsel for Respondents: Sri M. Yadagiri, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Women
Development and Child Welfare
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to
3.
Sri Sunil B. Ganu, learned Senior
Counsel representing Ms. G. Rama
Manoja, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.4.
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
1. W.P.No.32591 of 2025
2. (2021) 15 SCC 730
3. (2025) 2 SCC 787
4. 2025 SCC OnLine 2077
5. 2026 SCC OnLine TS 4142
6. (2021) 19 SCC 706
7. [(1971) 1 WLR 1578]
8. (2015) 8 SCC 519
9. SLP (CIVIL) D.No.42786 of 2025 decided on 12.09.2025
10. W.A.No.1198 of 2025
11. W.P.(C) 14078/2023 and CM APPL.55644/2023
2
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.1053 OF 2025
DATE: 08.07.2026
BETWEEN:
Chilikuri Ajay Kumar
...Appellant
AND
The State of Telangana and Three Others
...Respondents
Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms.Vedula Chitralekha,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
Sri M.Yadagiri, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and
Child Welfare appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Sri Sunil B.Ganu, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. G.Rama Manoja, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. The Writ Appeal has been filed against an order passed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court on 10.02.2025 in W.P.No.11628
of 2024. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition
filed by the appellant herein by granting him eight months’ time
from the date of the order to vacate and hand over the subject
property to the respondent No.4, failing which the respondent No.4
3
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
would be at liberty to take recourse to legal remedies for evicting
the appellant from the subject property.
2. The appellant is the son of the respondent No.4. The
strained relationship between the appellant and the respondent
No.4 would be evident from the genesis of the proceedings initiated
by the respondent No.4 against the appellant under the provisions
of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act,
2007 and the Rules framed thereunder, including those framed by
the Governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The
appellant approached the Writ Court assailing the orders passed
by the Collector and the Appellate Authority evicting the appellant
from the respondent No.4’s house at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
3. The relevant events may be traced to the respondent No.4
(father) making a complaint by filing an application
No.A/2063/2023 before the District Magistrate, Hyderabad, on
19.12.2023 with several complaints against the appellant. The
respondent No.4 sought the appellant’s eviction from the house
property located at Jubilee Hills. The appellant filed a counter
affidavit to the application on 08.02.2024, denying the allegations
made by his father/respondent No.4. The District Magistrate
passed an order on 20.02.2024 directing the appellant to vacate
4
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
the subject property within thirty days from the date on which the
order is issued.
4. The order of eviction was passed under Rule 20(2) of The
Telangana Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Rules, 2011 framed thereunder by the Government of
Andhra Pradesh and subsequently adopted by the Government of
Telangana and amended in 2022 by the Government of Telangana
vide G.O.Ms.No.40 dated 30.12.2022. The appellant challenged
the District Magistrate’s order before the Appellate Authority, i.e.,
the Commissioner/Director, Department for Empowerment of
Persons with Disabilities, Senior Citizens and Transgender
Persons, Government of Telangana under 21(3)(d)(i) of The
Telangana Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Rules, 2011. On 19.03.2024, the appellant and the
respondent No.4 were both put on notice and as the case was
under the purview of the Appellate Authority, they were ordered to
maintain status quo until further orders. By its order dated
16.04.2024 in Appeal No.S1/480/2024, the Appellate Authority
upheld the order passed by the District Magistrate directing
eviction of the appellant. An order of status quo granted by the
Appellate Authority on 19.03.2024 was also vacated.
5
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
5. The appellant thereafter approached the Writ Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution by filing a Writ Petition
(W.P.No.11628 of 2024 for a Writ of Mandamus against orders
passed by the District Magistrate and the Appellate Authority by
which the appellant had been evicted from the house property.
The appellant alleged that the order of eviction was passed without
following due process of law and in violation of the principles of
natural justice. The appellant also sought for suspending the
order passed by the District Magistrate on 20.02.2024.
6. The learned Single Judge noted the salient features of The
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
in respect of the power of the Tribunal to order eviction in just
situations to protect a senior citizen. The learned Single Judge
found that the subject property is the self-acquired property of the
respondent No.4 and that the District Magistrate and the Appellate
Authority had, in particular, ordered the eviction of the appellant
from the subject property. The learned Judge found that the
orders under challenge in the Writ Petition were neither illegal nor
irregular and hence did not call for interference, thereby disposed
the W.P.
7. The last few paragraphs of the impugned order record the
request made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant for
6
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
grant of reasonable time to the appellant to vacate the subject
property. The learned Judge accordingly disposed of the Writ
Petition by giving eight months’ time to the appellant to vacate and
hand over the subject property to the respondent No. 4. The eight
months granted expired on 10.10.2025. The present Appeal was
filed on 17.09.2025.
8. We have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant (son) and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent No.4 (father).
9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that Rule 21(3) of the 2011 Rules framed by the Government of
Telangana under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can only be invoked where the subject
property belongs to the applicant senior citizen. Counsel submits
that the said Rule prescribes a procedure in case of a senior
citizen not being maintained or is being ill-treated by his/her
children/legal heirs. Counsel further submits that Rule 21(3)
requires an opportunity of hearing to be given to the concerned
person before he/she is evicted from the property. According to
Counsel, the District Magistrate did not follow the prescribed
procedure and did not verify whether the subject property is the
self-acquired property of the respondent No.4.
7
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4
(father) submits that there is no dispute with regard to the title of
the respondent No.4 on the subject property. Counsel submits
that the respondent No.4 is the owner of 349 sq. yds., which was
earlier gifted to his wife, Smt. Chilukuri Satyavathi, under a Gift
Deed dated 13.12.2018. However, the said Gift Deed was
subsequently cancelled on 16.07.2021. Counsel submits that the
District Magistrate was well within their powers to order eviction of
the appellant as per the 2011 Rules, as amended by the
Government of Telangana, by inserting Rule 21(3) which
prescribed the procedure for eviction from the property of a senior
citizen/parents.
11. We have considered the material placed before us in support
of the rival contentions. The following issues are germane for
adjudication in the present dispute.
12. First, whether the District Magistrate (vide the order dated
20.02.2024) and the Appellate Authority (vide the order dated
16.04.2024) were authorized to order eviction of the appellant from
the subject property on the application made by the respondent
No.4; if so, whether there was any failure on the part of the
respondent authorities to follow the procedure for evicting the
8
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
appellant. Second, and if the first issue is answered in the
affirmative, whether the respondent authorities failed to follow the
procedure for evicting the appellant from the subject property.
13. With regard to the first issue, the Rules framed by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh, namely, The Andhra Pradesh
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules,
2011 vide G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 28.12.2011 which were adopted by
the Government of Telangana upon bifurcation of the State in
exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) read with
sub-section (2) of section 32 of The Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Central Act No.56 of 2007)
(‘the 2007 Act’) were for effective implementation of the provisions
of the 2007 Act for the welfare of parents and senior citizens in the
State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Section 32(1) of the 2007
Act empowers the State Government to make Rules to carry out
the purposes of the Act. Section 32(2) of the 2007 Act enumerates
different heads under which the State Government may make
Rules.
14. Rule 20 of the 2011 Rules provides for the Duties and
Powers of the District Magistrate. Sub-rules (1) and (2) authorizes
the District Magistrate to ensure that the provisions of the Act are
properly implemented. Rule 20(2)(i) reinforces the mandate of the
9
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
District Magistrate by specifying that the District Magistrate is
under a duty to ensure the protection of the life and property of
senior citizens of the District so that they are able to live with
security and dignity. Rule 20(2)(ii) enumerates the duties of the
District Magistrate to oversee and monitor the work of Registration
authority Maintenance Tribunals and Maintenance Officers of the
district for the timely and fair disposal of applications for
maintenance and for the execution of orders passed by the
Tribunal and implementation of the 2011 Rules. Rule 20(3)
further empowers the District Magistrate to issue directions from
time to time for the due implementation of the provisions of the
Act, Rules, Guidelines and instructions as prescribed by the State
Government.
15. Rule 21 of the 2011 Rules provides for an ‘Action Plan’ for
the Protection of the Life and Property of Senior Citizens. Rule
21(1) provides for the District Superintendent of Police and in case
of cities having a Police Commissioner such as Police
Commissioner to take necessary steps, according to the time to
time guidelines that the State Government issues for the
protection of life and property of Senior Citizens. Rule 21(2)
enumerates specific steps without prejudice to the generality of
10
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
sub-rule (1) in aid of the Action Plan for protecting the life and
property of senior citizens.
16. The Telangana Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens
Rules of 2011 were amended by the Government of Telangana vide
G.O.Ms.No.40 dated 30.12.2022. The amendment added Sub-rule
(3) to Rule 21 (of The Telangana Maintenance of Parents and
Senior Citizens Rules, 2011). Sub-rule (3) provides for the
Procedure for eviction from property of Senior Citizens/Parents.
The relevant part of the amended Rule 21(3) is set out below:
“Rule 21.
(3) Procedure for eviction from property of Senior
Citizen/Parents:
(a) (i) A senior citizen/parent, may make an application
before the Collector & District Magistrate of his/her
district, for eviction of his/her children/legal heir from
his/her property on account of his/her non-maintenance
and/or ill-treatment.
(ii) The Collector & District Magistrate shall immediately
forward such application to the concerned Sub-Divisional
Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer for verification of
the title of the property and facts of the case within fifteen
(15) days from the date of receipt of such application.
(iii) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional
Officer shall immediately submit his/her report to the
Collector & District Magistrate for final orders within sixty
(60) days from the date of receipt of the application.
11
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
(iv) The Collector & District Magistrate during summary
proceedings for the protection of senior citizens/parents
shall consider all the relevant provisions of the Act. If the
Collector & District Magistrate is of the opinion that any
children/ legal heir of a senior citizen /parent is not
maintaining the senior citizen/parent and/or ill-treating
him/her/them and yet is occupying the property of the
senior citizen/parent and that they should be evicted, the
Collector & District Magistrate shall issue in the manner
hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all
persons concerned to show cause as to why an order of
eviction should not be issued against them/him/her.
(v) The notice shall;-
(i) specify the grounds on which the order of
eviction is proposed
to be made; and
(ii) require all persons concerned, that is to
say, all persons who are, or may be, in
occupation of, or claim interest in, the
property, to show cause, if any, against the
proposed order on or before such date as is
specified in the notice, being a date not
earlier than ten (10) days from the date of
issue thereof.
(b) Eviction order from property of senior citizen/ parent:
If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by
any person in pursuance to the notice and any evidence
he/she may produce in support of the same and after
giving him/her a reasonable opportunity of being heard,
the Collector & District Magistrate is satisfied that the
eviction order needs to be made, the Collector & District
Magistrate may make an order of eviction, for reasons to
12
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025be recorded therein, directing that the property shall be
vacated.”
17. The amended Rule 21(3) would thus indicate that the
District Magistrate is empowered to order eviction of a child/legal
heir from the property of a Senior Citizen/Parent on an application
made by the latter before the jurisdictional District Magistrate.
The District Magistrate is thus the primary authority to receive the
application for eviction. The District Magistrate shall thereafter
forward the application to the concerned Sub-Divisional
Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer for verification of the title of
the property and facts of the case within fifteen days from the date
of receipt of the application.
18. Rule 21(3)(b) authorizes the District Magistrate to make an
order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded in writing, directing
that the property of the senior citizen be vacated. The District
Magistrate shall consider the cause shown by any person
pursuant to the notice issued under Rule 21(3)(a)(iv) and (v), and
shall give such person a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Rule
21(3)(b) also requires the District Magistrate to be satisfied that an
order of eviction is required to be made in the facts before
him/her.
13
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
19. Rule 21(3)(c)(i) strengthens the mandate of the District
Magistrate by conferring power for eviction and taking possession
of the property or premises in question, if the person refuses or
fails to comply with the order of eviction within thirty days from
the date of its issue. Clauses (ii) and (iii) further empower the
District Magistrate to enforce the eviction orders through the
police and the DSP or the Commissioner in case of cities, to carry
out execution of the eviction order, and to hand over the property
in question to the concerned senior citizen/parent.
20. Hence, the amended Rule 21, with the addition of Clause (3),
leaves no manner of doubt that the District Magistrate is vested
with the power and authority to order eviction of an errant
child/legal heir under the amended Rules brought into effect by
the Government of Telangana with effect from 30.12.2022, on an
application made by a senior citizen/parent and upon satisfaction
of the conditions outlined under the amended Rule 21(3).
21. Notably, a challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule
21(3), empowering the District Magistrate to order eviction of an
errant child/legal-heir, was repelled by a Co-ordinate Bench in R.
Srinivas v. State of Telangana and two others 1. The Division Bench
noted, inter alia, that the power of the Tribunal to order eviction is
1 W.P.No.32591 of 2025
14
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
necessary and expedient to ensure protection of senior citizens, as
recognized in paragraph 25 of S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru Urban District and others 2 and Urmila Dixit v. Sunil
Sharan Dixit and others 3. The Division Bench further held that a
senior citizen should be able to secure restoration of possession
from an abusive or errant child.
22. We thus hold that the District Magistrate was authorized
under the Act and the Rules framed by the State Government of
Telangana vide G.O.Ms. No.40 dated 30.12.2022 to pass an order
of eviction against the appellant from the subject property by their
order dated 20.02.2024.
23. With regard to the second issue, that is, whether the
respondent authorities failed to follow the procedure for eviction.
The newly inserted Rule 21(3) of the 2011 Rules (as amended on
30.12.2022), makes it clear that the District Magistrate may pass
an order of eviction against the child/legal heir on an application
by a senior citizen/parent to the District Magistrate. Rule
21(3)(a)(ii) provides for the procedure for ‘verification of the title of
the property’ from which the senior citizen seeks eviction of the
legal heir. Clause (iii) continues with the intention of the
2 (2021) 15 SCC 730
3 (2025) 2 SCC 787
15
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
preceding Clause (ii) in the matter of verification of the title of the
property of the senior citizen. Clause (iv) provides for ‘summary
proceedings’ undertaken by the District Magistrate for the
protection of the senior citizen where the District Magistrate
opines that the legal heir is not maintaining or ill-treating the
senior citizen, is continuing to occupy the property of the senior
citizen, and if the child/legal heir should hence be evicted from the
said property. Clause (iv) also requires notice to be served on all
concerned, in writing, to show cause as to why an order of eviction
should not be made against the legal heir.
24. It is undisputed that the respondent No.4 retains 349 sq.
yds. of the subject property even after gifting parts of the property
to his daughters and wife. The portion gifted to the respondent
No.4’s wife under the Gift Deed dated 13.12.2018 was
subsequently cancelled vide Cancellation Deed dated 16.07.2021.
This document is on record. The document notes that the earlier
Gift Deed in favour of the donee (Chilukuri Satyavathi/respondent
No.4’s wife), measuring 349.00 sq. yds. out of the total extent of
1310 sq. yds. of the property with built up area of 100 sq. feet at
Road No.55, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, was jointly cancelled by the
parties (respondent No. 4 and his wife), along with a further
declaration that the parties had never acted upon the earlier Gift
16
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
Deed and that possession had not been delivered to the donee
(respondent No.4’s wife) till the date of cancellation, i.e.,
16.07.2021.
25. Incidentally, it is also the appellant’s case that the
respondent No.4 gifted parts of the subject property to his
daughters and the remaining part to his wife, Chilukuri
Satyavathi. Hence, once the portion gifted to his wife was
cancelled by way of Cancellation of the Gift Deed dated
16.07.2021, the property so gifted (349.00 sq. yds.) reverted to the
respondent No.4. Therefore, factually, there can be no doubt that
the respondent No.4 was the owner of 349.00 sq. yds. of the
subject property as on the date of filing of the application before
the Collector and District Magistrate on 19.12.2023.
26. It is also evident from the material papers that the
appellant’s contention of the subject property being part of
ancestral property and that the land was given to the appellant as
a token of service rendered to the Jubilee Hills Co-operative
Society was negated by the District Magistrate as well as the
Appellate Authority. The learned Single Judge also agreed with
the fact in the impugned order.
17
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
27. In the order dated 20.02.2024, the District Magistrate
recorded that the appellant failed to provide any evidence to
corroborate his statement that the land was given by the Society to
the appellant as a token for services rendered by him, or that the
property was originally purchased from income derived from
ancestral agricultural lands. Similarly, the Appellate Authority, in
its order dated 16.04.2024, specifically records that the appellant
failed to provide any evidence that the respondent No.4 had
purchased the land and constructed the house from the income
derived from the sale of ancestral agricultural lands, or that the
respondent No.4 was not the owner of the entire property or any
part thereof.
28. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order dated
10.02.2025 came to the specific finding that the respondent No.4
had purchased the subject property with his own funds under two
separate Sale Deed Nos.4121/83 and 1534/99 dated 13.06.1983
and 07.11.1991, respectively and that, the appellant was a minor
at the time of such purchase. The learned Single Judge, hence,
drew upon the presumption that the appellant could not have
contributed any amount towards the purchase of the subject
property and accordingly held that it is the self-acquired property
of the respondent No.4. The learned Single Judge further held
18
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
that the respondent No.4 had gifted parts of the subject property
to his daughters out of his free will and was therefore entitled to
deal with the property in the manner of his choosing.
29. At the cost of repetition, Rule 21(3) contemplates enquiry
and verification with regard to the title of the property of the
Senior Citizen. The above paragraphs would show that the
respondent No.4’s title to the subject property is undisputed after
cancellation of the Gift Deed dated 16.07.2021. The appellant’s
challenge to the respondent No.4’s title was negated in three
consecutive stages by reason of the appellant’s failure to bring any
evidence in support of his contention that the respondent No.4 is
not the owner of the subject property.
30. The issue of alleged infraction of Rule 21(3) of The Telangana
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules,
2011 (as amended by GOMs.No.40, dated 30.12.2022) is
considered in the paragraphs below.
31. At the cost of repetition, Rule 21(3) of Rules sets out the
procedure from eviction of property of senior citizens/parents.
Rule 21(3)(a)(i) stipulates that the senior citizen/parents may
make an application before the District Magistrate of his/her
District, for eviction of his/her children/legal heir from his/her
19
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
property on account of his/her non-maintenance and/or
ill-treatment. Rule 21(3)(a)(ii) requires the District Magistrate to
forward the application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue
Divisional Officer for verification of title of the property and the
facts of the case within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the
application. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional
Officer shall submit his/her report to the District Magistrate for
final orders within sixty days from the date of receipt of the
application under Rule 21(3)(a)(iii).
32. In the present case, there is no dispute as to the title of the
property of the respondent No.4/senior citizen. The Reply
submitted by the appellant to the District Magistrate on
08.02.2024 contains a specific statement that the respondent No.4
was allotted land to the extent of 579 sq yards by the Jubilee Hills
Co-operative Society and an extent of 1261 square yards but the
same was registered in the name of the complainant (the
respondent No.4/senior citizen) as the ‘Kartha’ of the family. This
fact was specifically referred to in the order passed by the District
Magistrate, Hyderabad on 16.04.2024.
33. The District Magistrate also notes that the respondent
No.4/senior citizen is the absolute owner of Plot No.1085 forming
20
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
part old Sy.No.403/1 and new Sy.No.120 of Shaikpet Village and
Sy.No.102/1 of Hakimpet Village, Golkonda, Hyderabad
admeasuring 1261 square yards or 1055 sq meters situated within
approved layout of Jubilee Hills Co-operative Housing Building
Society Limited having purchased the same from Jubilee Hills Co-
operative Society under registered Sale Deed No.412 of 1983 and
constructed the house on the said land and subsequently
purchased 579 sq yards through a registered Sale Deed No.1534
of 1999. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 executed a registration
deed in respect of 530 square yards in favour of his elder daughter
and a gift deed for 900 square yards to his younger daughter and
retained 349 square yards in his name.
34. It is pertinent to point out that the appellant did not adduce
any evidence before the District Collector to dislodge these facts
and show that the respondent No.4 was not the absolute owner of
the land or the house constructed therein or that this was part of
ancestral property. We have also referred to the cancellation of
the Gift Deed on 16.07.2021 with regard to the property gifted by
the appellant to his wife which further shows that the respondent
No.4 held 349 square yards as on the date of the complaint and
the orders passed by the District Collector, Appellate Tribunal and
thereafter the learned Single Judge.
21
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
35. Thus, we accept the contention made on behalf of the
respondent No.4 that the respondent No.4 is the absolute owner of
the property and there is no dispute with regard to the title or any
need to verify the same as per Rule 21(3)(a)(ii) and (iii) of the 2011
Rules.
36. Second, Rule 21(3)(a)(i) requires an application to be made
by the senior citizen for eviction of his/her children/legal heir from
his/her property on account of non-maintenance and/or ill-
treatment. Contrary to the stand taken on behalf of the appellant,
there are at least two instances where the respondent No.4/senior
citizen has specifically mentioned ill-treatment at the hands of his
son (the appellant).
37. The order passed by the Appellate Authority on 16.04.2024
specifically records that the statement of the respondent
No.4/senior citizen stated:
‘…he feared about his safety due to his deceitful
and abusive nature of his son/appellant and is
extremely uncomfortable to stay with his son in the
same house…’
38. The order of the District Magistrate dated 20.02.2024
further records the statement of the applicant/senior citizen (the
22
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
respondent No.4) that the applicant faced harassment and life
threats from his son (the appellant) which led the applicant to
approach Jubilee Hills Police Station and file a complaint against
his son. Last of all, the complaint made by the respondent
No.4/senior citizen before the District Collector on 20.12.2023
specifically states that the appellant is ‘extremely unpleasant’ and
that the respondent No.4 felt ‘stressed’ and ‘humiliated’ due to the
behaviour of the appellant. The respondent No.4 also states that
‘…he is making my life miserable…’ (‘he’ refers to the appellant).
39. In the present case, there is no dispute that the proceeding
for eviction was commenced on the application of the respondent
No.4 (senior citizen) to the District Magistrate on 19.12.2023. The
application clearly stated that the appellant did not show any
interest in taking care of respondent No.4 or his wife, who was a
cancer patient, in terms of taking them to the hospital or attending
to their needs. The application further states that the respondent
No.4 and his wife were constrained to live with their elder
daughter at Nizampet, Hyderabad, and that their youngest
daughter and her family arranged for the care and support of the
respondent No.4 and his wife.
40. The application further states that in September 2023, the
appellant created a scene and did not allow the respondent No.4’s
23
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
son-in-law (elder daughter’s husband) to enter the house. The
youngest daughter of the respondent No.4 later came to stay with
them to provide support for food and medicines. The appellant
also did not allow his younger daughter (the appellant’s sister) to
enter the house. It is further stated that the respondent No.4 gave
large sums of money to the appellant for his business and
high-value properties near Hitech City, agricultural land near
Shadnagar, and a plot in Banjara Hills and Mettuguda. However,
the respondent No.4 and his wife also had to approach their
youngest daughter to request and arrange funds to pay off the
outstanding loan amounts to prevent the auction of their house,
caused by the appellant’s wrongdoings. The appellant filed cases
against his sisters regarding the land gifted by the respondent
No.4 to them, which led to further friction between the family
members. The appellant also did not allow the respondent No.4 to
keep his car inside the compound of the house and refused to
hand over the keys of servant rooms to the respondent No.4. The
appellant abused, harassed, and threatened the respondent No.4
with dire consequences when he was asked to hand over the keys.
41. The application concludes by stating that the respondent
No.4 who is 84 years old (as on 19.12.2023) is suffering from
24
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
diabetes, cardiac condition and is also a cancer survivor, needs
relief from the Court cases filed by the appellant.
42. In this context, it is important to state that ill-treatment and
non-maintenance are not always easy to prove by a senior citizen
before the Statutory Authority or in a Court of law. Ill-treatment
and lack of maintenance can take many forms including silence,
communication or even of the absence of basic care for a senior
citizen by their children/legal heirs. Ill-treatment can also be in
the form of stopping conversations or failing to give company to
the senior citizen. It is now well-documented that most senior
citizens lead isolated lives and suffer from extreme loneliness.
Lives of such senior citizen cannot always be documented in terms
of specific evidence as to ill-treatment at the hands of the legal
heirs.
43. Rule 21 of the 2011 Rules is only an instance where the law
takes into account cases of isolation and absence of
maintenance/ill-treatment and gives an opportunity to the senior
citizen to balance the scales by seeking eviction of uncaring child.
Requiring a senior citizen to prove non-maintenance/ill-treatment
in relation to specific evidence would frustrate the efficacy of the
2011 Rules itself. Rule 21(3) tightens the objective of the 2007 Act
and ensures that an ill-treated senior citizen has a recourse
25
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
available to them to end the ordeal and suffering at the hands of
their children. Hence, a hyper-technical approach in terms of
demanding evidence in all cases of ill-treatment would defeat both
the 2007 Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder.
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007 is a welfare legislation and hence the provisions must be
construed in a manner so that the benefit reaches the intended
persons: Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector 4. The fact that
the errant child is also a senior citizen would make more
difference to implementing the provisions of the 2007 Act:
Kamalakant Mishra (supra). This is relevant since the appellant
(son) in the present Appeal (also) claims to be a senior citizen. The
Legislature intended that senior citizens should be given quick and
effective relief without being put in the stranglehold of the
technicalities: Smt.Kurakula Shanta v. Kurakula Gajendra Mohan 5.
44. The appellant’s complaint of violation of the principles of
natural justice under Rules 21(3)(a)(iv) & (v) is also without any
factual or legal basis. The order of the District Magistrate dated
20.02.2024 specifically records that the parties were afforded a
personal hearing pursuant to issue of notices in terms of Rules
21(3)(a)(iv) & (v) and that both the appellant and the respondent
4 2025 SCC OnLine 2077
5 2026 SCC OnLine TS 4142
26
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
No.4 attended the hearings. The order records the contentions of
both the appellant as well as the respondent No.4. The order of
the Appellate Authority was also passed on contest and after
considering the submissions made by the appellant. Further, the
appellant cannot deny the issue of a show cause notice to the
appellant dated 24.01.22024 under Rule 21(3)(a)(iv), which was
the starting point of the proceedings for eviction culminating in the
order dated 20.02.2024. The appellant’s reply of dated
08.202.2024 to the show cause notice is also on record.
45. Thus, we are of the considered view that there has been no
infraction of Rule 21(3), including denial of the opportunity of
hearing to the appellant.
46. In any event, compliance of the principles of natural justice
cannot be strait-jacketed. The Court/Tribunal must first
determine whether prejudice has been caused to the party
concerned by the alleged deprivation of an opportunity of hearing.
For instance, punishment based on an admission of liability may
be upheld even in the absence of a formal enquiry. In other
words, a fair hearing would not make any difference where the
evidence against an individual is utterly compelling, i.e., a hearing
would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the
decision-maker as held in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar
27
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
Singh 6 and in Malloch v. Aberdeen Corpn. 7, referred to by the
Supreme Court in Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy
Commissioner of Central Excise 8. In the present case, since the
title of the respondent No.4 to the subject property is undisputed
from the records, an enquiry into such title would not have served
any purpose or yielded any result in favour of the appellant.
47. A welfare legislation requires liberal construction of its
provisions so as to advance the objective of the legislation and to
minimise delays in consonance with the decision in Kamalakant
Mishra v. Additional Collector & Ors 9. Reference in this context may
also be made to a judgment passed by this Bench in Smt.
Kurakula Shanta v. Kurakula Gajendra Mohan 10, wherein it was
held that Rule 21(3) of the 2011 Rules cannot be read in isolation
so as to curtail the jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal
constituted under section 7 of the 2007 Act, since the Tribunal
retains the power to determine the rights of the parties and pass
necessary orders with regard to the property. Absolute proof of ill-
treatment is also not necessary for passing an order of eviction
under the Act. A senior citizen is entitled to seek relief under the
2007 Act even where the title of the property is disputed and the
6 (2021) 19 SCC 706
7 [(1971) 1 WLR 1578]
8 (2015) 8 SCC 519
9 SLP (CIVIL) D.No.42786 of 2025 decided on 12.09.2025
10 W.A.No.1198 of 2025
28
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
senior citizen is only able to establish a “modicum of right” in the
subject property as laid down in Piare Khan v. Government of Nct of
Delhi & Ors 11.
48. In the present case, the right of the respondent No.4 over
the subject property is undisputed and stands established from
the records forming part of the Writ Appeal.
49. The above reasons constrain us to reject the appellant’s
argument with regard to non-compliance of the procedure under
Rule 21(3) of the 2011 Rules, as amended by the Government of
Telangana.
50. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any substance
in the stand taken by the appellant on the illegality of the orders
passed by the District Magistrate and the Appellate Authority.
Consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the
findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the
Writ Petition filed by the appellant. We reiterate that the appellant
sought for time to vacate the subject premises but instead filed the
instant Appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single
Judge.
11 W.P.(C) 14078/2023 and CM APPL.55644/2023
29
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.No.1053 of 2025
51. WA.No.1053 of 2025, along with all connected applications,
is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
__________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
____________________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Date: 08.07.2026
Note: LR Copy be marked
(B/o)
NDS/BMS
