The Supreme Court of India recently reaffirmed that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ("2007 Act") does not mandate the automatic eviction of children from their elderly parents' homes. The ruling came in response to an elderly mother's plea seeking the eviction of her son from their ancestral property due to a deteriorating relationship.
The Court clarified that while the 2007 “The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act nowhere specifically provide for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior person,” observed the bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti.Act primarily focuses on ensuring maintenance and financial security for senior citizens, it does not explicitly provide for eviction in every case. The Court emphasized that eviction orders can only be passed in exceptional circumstances where it is necessary to protect the well-being of the senior citizen.
“The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act nowhere specifically provide for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior person,” observed the bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Orders Rs 30 Lakh Compensation for Manual Sewer Cleaners Deaths in Metros
The Court further explained that the Act empowers the Tribunal to grant maintenance and, in case of default, impose fines or imprisonment. However, eviction is not an inherent right under the Act and must be justified by circumstances.
The Court referred to previous judgments, including S. Vanitha vs. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. (2021) and Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors. (2025), to explain that Tribunals have the jurisdiction to order eviction, but only when deemed necessary for the protection of senior citizens.
In the present case, the elderly parents had approached the Tribunal under the 2007 Act, seeking maintenance as well as the eviction of their son, who operated a utensils shop from the same house. They alleged that their son had mistreated them and failed to take care of their daily needs.
The Tribunal upheld the parents' right to maintenance but did not order eviction, instead restricting the son from encroaching on additional portions of the property beyond his shop and residence.
Read Also:- Service Charge Is Voluntary, Cannot Be Made Compulsory on Food Bills: Delhi High Court
The elderly parents challenged the Tribunal’s decision before the Appellate Tribunal, which set aside the original ruling and ordered the eviction of their son. However, when the son appealed to the High Court, the Court partly overturned the Appellate Tribunal’s order, maintaining the maintenance directive but revoking the eviction order.
Dissatisfied with the High Court's decision, the elderly mother moved the Supreme Court, citing the Urmila Dixit judgment to argue that the Tribunal has the authority to order eviction when necessary.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision and dismissed the mother’s plea, clarifying that:
- The 2007 Act does not provide for automatic eviction; it primarily ensures maintenance.
- The Tribunal “may” order eviction, but only if it is necessary for the senior citizen’s protection.
- The Appellate Tribunal had no justification for ordering eviction, as it had not recorded any specific reasons warranting such an order.
- The property rights dispute between the parties was pending before a civil court, making eviction inappropriate at this stage.
“The Appellate Tribunal was not justified in ordering eviction merely because the property belongs to Kallu Mal, completely ignoring the fact that the claim of Krishna Kumar regarding 1/6th share and the cancellation of gifts and sale deeds is pending adjudication before the civil court.”
With these observations, the Supreme Court concluded that eviction in such cases must be based on clear necessity and not assumed as a default remedy under the 2007 Act.
Apart from the legal findings, the Supreme Court also expressed concern over the increasing family disputes between elderly parents and their children. The judgment lamented the erosion of familial bonds and the growing trend of isolation among senior citizens.
“In India, we believe in ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ – the world is one family. However, today we struggle to maintain unity even within our immediate families. The very concept of ‘family’ is being eroded, and we are on the brink of a society where every individual lives alone,” the Court observed.
Case Title: SAMTOLA DEVI VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Pallav Shisodiya, Sr. Adv. (argued by) Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Bhoopesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Vivek Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Adv. Mr. Sk Warish Ali, Adv. Ms. Saumya Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s)/ :Mr. Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Sr. Adv. (argued by) R-4 Mr. Aviral Saxena, AOR Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv. Mr. K Aditya Singh, Adv. Mr. Shashank Kumar Srivastava, Adv.
