The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order directing the eviction of a doctor and his family from his 82-year-old mother’s house in Mysuru, and instructed the Mysuru Sub-Divisional Magistrate to implement the direction within 60 days of receiving the court order.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a writ petition filed by Dr M.S. Mahesh, a medical officer in Sakleshpur taluk of Hassan district. The petition challenged orders issued by the Mysuru Sub-Divisional Magistrate and later upheld by the Mysuru Deputy Commissioner.
The case arose from a complaint filed by Mahesh’s mother, Subhadramma, before the Assistant Commissioner, who also serves as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the competent authority under the senior-citizen welfare framework. She alleged that her son had entered the property and vacated her sister, who was living in an outhouse, while causing her mental distress. She sought the eviction of her son and his family so that she could live peacefully in the house.
According to the court record summarised in the report, Subhadramma said she had been living on pension and rental income with assistance from her sister after her husband’s death in 2008. She has one son and two daughters. The property involved is identified in the proceedings as the scheduled property belonging to her.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate had ordered Mahesh’s eviction from the property on August 12, 2024. Mahesh appealed to the Deputy Commissioner, who upheld that order on February 4, 2025. He then approached the High Court challenging the Deputy Commissioner’s decision.
The High Court said it would intervene in such proceedings only in limited circumstances, including a lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, a legal error apparent from the record, or a failure by the competent authority to reach a decision on the matter before it. The court said it did not find a need to re-examine the evidence considered by the tribunal and appellate authority in the case.
The order also clarifies the limits of the eviction direction. The court said implementation of the Deputy Commissioner’s upheld order must take place within 60 days after a copy of the High Court order is received. At the same time, it stated that the direction would not affect the original civil litigation concerning the property dispute between Mahesh and his mother.
The ruling therefore separates immediate residential protection from final adjudication of property rights. The administrative order concerns possession and the protection of the senior citizen under the applicable law, while the underlying civil suit can continue independently. The next formal step is enforcement by the Mysuru Sub-Divisional Magistrate within the timeline fixed by the High Court.
