A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The appeal concerns whether an Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 could lawfully order eviction of the eldest son from a portion of a house alleged to belong to his deceased father, when parallel civil suits over title and partitions are pending and the son is paying maintenance ordered by the Family Court.

The Maintenance Tribunal initially imposed limited occupancy conditions and preservation of peaceful co-existence; the Appellate Tribunal ordered eviction; the High Court set aside the eviction while preserving other protective directions. The Supreme Court, after examining statutory scheme, prior authority including S. Vanitha v. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors., held that though the Tribunal may in exceptional circumstances order eviction under Section 23 read with the Act’s protective object, eviction is not an automatic or mandatory remedy in every petition.

On facts existence of pending civil suits claiming 1/6th share, transfer/gift/sale deeds executed by the father, continued payment of maintenance and absence of fresh material showing harassment after the Tribunal’s order—the Appellate Tribunal erred in directing eviction without recording necessity or expediency to protect the senior citizen. The High Court’s interference setting aside eviction but keeping other protective conditions was sustained.

Keywords: Senior citizens; Maintenance Tribunal; Eviction order; Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007; Implied licence to occupy.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal arises from a family dispute where elderly parents, led by Samtola Devi, invoked statutory protection under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 against their son Krishna Kumar seeking reliefs including eviction from a portion of the ancestral/self-acquired house. Procedurally the matter travelled through the Maintenance Tribunal which adopted a measured order preserving the son’s right to occupy a discrete shop and a one-room living space while imposing non-harassment conditions and police supervision.

The Appellate Tribunal thereafter directed eviction. The son secured relief from the High Court which set aside the eviction ruling but preserved the Tribunal’s other protective directions. The senior citizen appealed to this Court. The statutory backdrop frames the issue: the Act primarily provides maintenance and criminal enforcement for default, but this Court in S. Vanitha recognized limited power to order eviction in extraordinary cases to secure a senior citizen’s protection.

The present matter tests the contours of that discretion when overlapping civil claims on title and transfers are pending and the occupant continues to discharge maintenance liabilities. The Court emphasized balancing the Act’s protective purpose with property and pending civil litigation, requiring specific factual findings before depriving a son of occupancy where he asserts a co-ownership claim and pays maintenance.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Late Kallu Mal purchased House No. 778 in 1971 and ran a utensil business there. He and his wife Samtola Devi had three sons and two daughters. The eldest son Krishna Kumar continued the utensil business from one of three shops and lived in a single room with attached bathroom. Relations soured; the parents alleged mental and physical harassment by the son and complaints and applications to local authorities predated the statutory petition.

In 2017 the Family Court awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000 each to the parents payable by the two sons; that order remained unchallenged. The parents filed a petition under the Senior Citizens Act in April 2019. The Maintenance Tribunal allowed limited occupation to Krishna Kumar and directed continued payment of maintenance; it warned of eviction only on continued humiliation.

The parents appealed; the Appellate Tribunal ordered eviction. Krishna Kumar approached the High Court which set aside the eviction, preserving other conditions. Meanwhile, Krishna Kumar instituted civil suits seeking declaration of 1/6th share and cancellation of alleged gifts/sale deeds executed by the father in favor of daughters and son-in-law, and documentation on record showed several transfers by the father.

The father died during proceedings and the mother, Samtola Devi, continued litigation seeking eviction. The son maintained he had rights, was paying maintenance and the eviction would preempt the pending civil disputes over title.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 may order eviction of a son/relative as a protective remedy.
ii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing eviction of the son when civil suits relating to title and share were pending.
iii. Whether mere ownership alleged by parents suffices to order eviction absent active harassment or necessity to protect the senior citizen.
iv. Whether the existence of a prior s.125 Cr.P.C. maintenance order and compliance by the son impacts the exercise of eviction power under the Act.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellant-mother contended that the house was self-acquired property of the deceased father and that Krishna Kumar had no legal authority to reside against the parents’ wishes. It was submitted that the son had mentally and physically tortured the parents and that eviction was necessary to secure the dignity and peaceful life of a senior citizen. Reliance was placed on Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors. to argue that tribunals exercising jurisdiction under the Senior Citizens Act may order eviction where expedient for protection.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The son maintained that he occupied only a one-room portion and the shop to carry on the family business, had been paying the maintenance awarded by the Family Court, and had instituted civil suits claiming 1/6th share and seeking cancellation of gifts/sale deeds. He argued that the property was not exclusively the father’s and that eviction would preempt and prejudice the pending civil adjudications. He further contended that no post-order harassment had occurred to justify the drastic remedy of eviction.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 — s.4; s.5; s.23 (maintenance application, Tribunal powers and enforcement).
ii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.125 (family court maintenance order relied upon).
iii. Judicial precedents: S. Vanitha v. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. (recognition of eviction power in limited cases) and Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors. (followed principle that eviction may be ordered but not as a rule).

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order setting aside the Appellate Tribunal’s eviction directive. The Court undertook statutory construction and fact-sensitive analysis. It observed that the Senior Citizens Act primarily contemplates maintenance and penal consequences for refusal to provide maintenance; it does not expressly provide general eviction powers.

The jurisdictional basis for eviction arises only by necessary implication and through earlier judicial observations (notably S. Vanitha) that permitted eviction where necessary and expedient to protect elderly persons. The court emphasized that such power is discretionary and exceptional; the Tribunal must record cogent reasons demonstrating necessity or expediency before ordering eviction.

On facts the Court noted: the son had an implied licence to occupy a small portion, continued to pay maintenance as per s.125 Cr.P.C. order, and valid civil disputes over title and alleged transfers were pending. Transfers executed by the father to daughters and others indicated that the father may not have been exclusive owner at the time and, if he was not owner, eviction at the instance of the parents could be inappropriate the purchasers/assignees would be proper parties to seek eviction.

The Appellate Tribunal failed to record any finding that eviction was necessary to protect the senior citizen; it merely relied upon alleged ownership by the father. The Court concluded that maintenance and restraint against harassment under ss.4/5 of the Act would adequately serve the protective purpose; eviction was an extreme measure unjustified on the record. Consequently, High Court’s approach of maintaining protective conditions while setting aside eviction was endorsed.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The controlling legal principle is that although a Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act may, in exceptional and necessary circumstances, order eviction of a son or relative to secure the safety and dignity of a senior citizen (as indicated in S. Vanitha and followed in Urmila Dixit), such power is discretionary and must be exercised only after recording specific reasons demonstrating necessity or expediency.

Where the occupant pays maintenance, occupies a limited portion without evidence of continuing harassment, and parallel civil proceedings contest title or share are pending, eviction is not an automatic or preferred remedy; maintenance, monitoring and restraining directions suffice unless the Tribunal records concrete findings justifying eviction.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed in passing that once the owner has alienated property by sale or gift, the erstwhile owner cannot claim exclusive title to procure eviction; purchasers or assignees have the remedy. The Court further noted the social value of preserving family bonds and cautioned against mechanical resort to eviction under the protection statute when less intrusive measures can protect elderly persons.

c. GUIDELINES

The Court articulated practical markers for tribunals:

(1) before ordering eviction, record material showing persistent harassment, danger to life, or conduct amounting to intolerable indignity;

(2) consider pendency of civil suits over title and whether eviction would preempt or interfere with those rights;

(3) weigh compliance with existing maintenance orders (s.125 Cr.P.C. and Act orders);

(4) prefer graduated remedies maintenance enforcement, restraint against harassment, police monitoring before eviction;

(5) if eviction is ordered, articulate reasons and provide clear timeline and safeguards to avoid injustice. These guideposts aim to ensure eviction remains an exceptional, fact-driven remedy.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Court’s decision strikes a balanced approach respectful of the protective purpose of the Senior Citizens Act without undermining property rights and pending civil adjudications. It reinforces that the Tribunal’s power to order eviction is not plenary but circumscribed by necessity, recorded findings and proportionality. Practically, tribunals should document incidents, examine contemporaneous conduct after interim orders, and consider existing civil proceedings and maintenance compliance before depriving an occupant of residence.

The judgment preserves effective protective measures for senior citizens while guarding against summary dispossession that may miscarry justice where ownership and shares are disputed. For practitioners, the case emphasizes meticulous pleading and evidence-gathering on both harassment and title to support or resist eviction applications under the Act.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

S. Vanitha v. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 730.
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors., (2025) 2 SCC 787.
Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1235 : 2025 INSC 404.

b. Important Statutes Referred

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (India).
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 125 (maintenance).