Senior Citizens Act Doesn't Mandate Eviction Of Children From Parents' Home In Every Case : Supreme Court Rejects Mother's Plea To Evict Son

Noting that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“2007 Act”), ensures maintenance for elderly parents but does not explicitly permit eviction, the Supreme Court (March 27) dismissed an elderly mother's plea to evict her son from their ancestral home following a strained relationship.

The Court clarified that the 2007 Act does not mandate the automatic eviction of children from parental property; eviction orders can only be passed in exceptional cases to safeguard the senior citizen's well-being.

“The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere specifically provides 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. The Court noted that as per the Act, the Tribunal can provide for the monthly maintenance and expenses, and in case of default, it can issue a warrant to levy fines and even sentence the defaulter to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month.

The Court said that it was because of the judgment in  S. Vanitha vs. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. (2021) that the Tribunals got jurisdiction to pass eviction orders. It was held there that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act may also order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizens. This was followed by the judgment in  Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors. (2025) which held that Tribunal 'may' order eviction.

The Court heard the case where the Appellants-elderly parents were directed to be paid the monthly maintenance by their two sons by the family court.

However, the Appellant's husband initiated a proceeding under the 2007 Act for his son's eviction from the ancestral house, where the son was operating a utensils shop at one portion of the same house,  citing his ill-treatment towards his father, and failure to look after the daily needs.

The Tribunal upheld the family court's direction to pay maintenance to the elderly parents, however instead of directing the eviction of the son, it directed him to not encroach upon any part of the house without the permission of his parents except the shop in which he is carrying utensil business and the room with a bathroom occupied by him in which he resides with his wife and children.

Aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision, the Appellant along with her husband approached the Appellate Tribunal under the 2007 Act which set aside the Tribunal's order and directed the eviction of Appellant's son.

On the Son's appeal, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of eviction passed against the son but maintained the other directions given by the Tribunal.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision to order her son's eviction, the elderly mother approached the Supreme Court citing the recent case of Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors. (2025) to contend that in proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, the Tribunal is empowered, if necessary, to order the eviction of the son/relative if found expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizens.

Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mithal noted that under the 2007 Act, the eviction is not automatic upon filing of the application because the Act provides for maintenance, not eviction.

The Court said that the Appellant's reliance on Urmila Dixit's case was misplaced because in that case it was held that the Tribunal ''may order'' eviction but it is not necessary and mandatory to pass an order of eviction in every case.

The Court noted that “the Appellate Court had not recorded any reason necessitating the eviction of son or that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is expedient to order eviction so as to ensure the protection of the senior citizen.”

“In our opinion, the Appellate Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in ordering for his eviction merely for the reason that 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.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 

We are on the brink of becoming 'one person one family' society

In the judgment, the Court also lamented the increasing number of family disputes, especially between elderly parents and children.

"In India we believe in “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” i.e. the earth, as a whole, is one family. However, today we are not even able to retain the unity in the immediate family, what to say of building one family for the world. The very concept of 'family' is being eroded and we are on the brink of one person one family," the Court observed in the beginning of the judgment.

Case Title: SAMTOLA DEVI VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362

Click here to read/download the judgment

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.