Senior Citizens Act | Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Order Passed Against Son & Daughter-in-Law From Elderly Man's Property

Confirming the order of eviction passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007  against a son and daughter-in-law, the Supreme Court recently held in favour of a 75-yr old man whose self-acquired property was encroached upon by the couple.

"It shall be a defeat of the purpose of the Act if Appellant is not granted the benefit of eviction against his son and daughter-in-law who have not only encroached his self-acquired property but also threatened him of false criminal complaints, abusing and creating hurdles in running of the Rest House and thereby causing mental and physical harassments to old parents", observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

To briefly state the facts of the case, the appellant, an ex-employee of Bihar State Housing Board, was transferred a property at Kankarbagh, Patna by a Deed of Lease in Perpetuity dated 20.07.1992. After he retired, the appellant constructed 20 rooms on the property and rented them out to supplement his income, while he resided with his wife elsewhere.

The appellant's third son (respondent No.8) got married in the year 2018. In 2021, the son's wife (respondent No.9) allegedly started creating discord in the family. Initially, respondent No.8 requested the appellant for access to one of the rooms on the subject property, assuring that he would seek alternative accommodation. However, subsequently, respondent No.9 and the couple's child also started living at the property. Allegedly, they encroached upon 2 other rooms at the Rest House and extended threats of false implication in criminal cases to the appellant.

This led the appellant to file a complaint at the local police station. In response, respondent No.8 also filed a complaint against the appellant (and others) alleging ill-treatment of his wife on account of her caste, as well as a suit for partition. Eventually, the appellant filed an application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking removal of the illegal encroachment on the subject property. The Maintenance Tribunal ruled in his favor and ordered the eviction of respondent Nos. 8 and 9.

Respondent Nos.8 and 9 challenged the Tribunal's order before the High Court. Respondent No. 9, in addition, filed a case against the appellant and his family members under Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The Single Bench of the High Court ruled in favor of the appellant. It reasoned that the 2007 Act aims to provide simple, speedy, and inexpensive mechanisms for the protection of life and property of older persons. Further, it emphasized that removal of a person with no right in the premises is not eviction. Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court observed that a Tribunal may have authority to order an eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parent, and eviction would be an incident of the enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection.

In appeal, the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Bench, noting that the Maintenance Tribunal could not have ordered the eviction of the respondents in the absence of a specific claim of maintenance under Section 23(1) of the Act. It further observed that the appropriate remedy was not eviction but imposing a fair rental obligation on respondent No.9 for the occupied rooms. Remanding the matter to enable determination of reasonable rent, the bench however gave the appellant option to pursue eviction through Civil Court.

After perusing the facts, the Supreme Court concurred with the views taken by the Maintenance Tribunal and Single Judge of the High Court. It was noted that there was a concurrent finding of fact that the subject property was the appellant's self-acquired property, and not an ancestral property. The respondents were however given liberty to pursue their claim through appropriate legal remedy.

In view of the multiple proceedings initiated against the appellant, it was further observed that the behavior of respondent Nos.8 and 9 towards him was worsening day-by-day. The Court also took into consideration Rule 21 (2) (i) of the Bihar Senior Citizens Rules, 2012, as per which, it is the duty of the District Magistrate to ensure that life and property of senior citizens are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity.

On the question of the authority of Tribunal to order eviction, the Court referred to S Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner which held that the Tribunal has the authority to order eviction to ensure maintenance and protection of senior citizens.

Ultimately, the order of the Division Bench of High Court was set aside and that of the Tribunal restored. Respondent Nos.8 and 9 were given time till 31.05.2025 to vacate the subject property and handover possession to the appellant.

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

Case Title: RAJESWAR PRASAD ROY v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS., SLP(C) NO. 7675/2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Click here to read the judgment