Dismissed¶41

Sanjai v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC17 Jul 2026WP(MD)/15679/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed; certiorari under Article 226 refused; Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007; Section 21 powers of Tribunal; senior citizen shelter and eviction order; settlement deed Doc.No.3268 of 2019; grandson-settlee directed to provide shelter; grandmother's right to reside in settled property till lifetime; Senior Citizen Maintenance and Welfare Tribunal, Madurai District; RDO order Mu.Mu.No.196/2023/J dated 25.04.2023 upheld; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; W.P.(MD)No.15679 of 2023; connected W.M.P.(MD)Nos.13154, 13156 & 24443 of 2023 closed.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner: the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions (W.M.P.(MD)Nos.13154, 13156 & 24443 of 2023) were closed. ¶41

Sanjai Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.15679 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.07.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.15679 of 2023

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.13154, 13156 & 24443 of 2023

Sanjai

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶13

Rep. By the Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶14

cum The Principal Officer,

¶15

The Senior Citizen Maintenance and Welfare Tribunal,

¶16

Madurai District.

¶17

2.Lakshmi Ammal

¶18

3.Swathi ... Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.196/2023/J dated 25.04.2023 and quash the same as illegal.

¶20

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.15679 of 2023

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan

¶24

For Respondent No.1 : Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari,

¶25

Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu For Respondent No.3 : No appearance

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.196/2023/J dated 25.04.2023.

¶28

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the grandson of the second respondent and out of love and affection, executed a settlement deed in Doc.No.3268 of 2019 in favour of the petitioner and subsequently, she initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The first respondent vide the impugned order dated 25.04.2023, directed the petitioner to provide shelter to the second respondent in the settled property. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶29

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to take care of the second respondent, however,

¶30

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.15679 of 2023

¶33

insisting the petitioner to give a separate house ie., the settled property is not certainable and accordingly, he prays for appropriate orders.

¶34

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel for the first respondent would submit that since the petitioner has not taken care of the fourth respondent, she made a complaint under the Act before the first respondent. The first respondent, in order to ensure shelter to a senior citizen, has passed the impugned order, which need not be interfered with. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate orders.

¶35

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶36

6. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner is the grandson of the second respondent and the second respondent had made a petition before the first respondent under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The first respondent vide the impugned order dated 25.05.2023, had directed the petitioner to provide shelter to the second respondent in the subject settled property. Since the petitioner failed to take care of the second respondent who is now in streets, the first respondent, in order to ensure shelter to the third respondent has ordered for eviction, which is well within the powers of the first respondent under

¶37

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.15679 of 2023

¶40

Section 21 of the Act. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. This Court is also of the opinion that the second respondent is entitled to reside in the settled property, till her life time.

¶41

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no

¶42

order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶43

17.07.2026

¶44

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No

¶45

¶46

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶47