Supreme Court upholds High Court in refusing eviction of son under Senior Citizens Act, directs maintenance focus

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti heard an appeal by a senior citizen seeking eviction of her son from ancestral premises under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The appeal challenged the High Court's order dated 18.08.2023 which had set aside an Appellate Tribunal order directing eviction of the son and had retained other protective directions issued by the Maintenance Tribunal.

The Court dismissed the civil appeal and affirmed the High Court's approach that eviction was not warranted in the facts of the case. The bench observed that while a Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act "may also order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizens," eviction was not mandatory in every case and could not be ordered where competing ownership claims and ongoing civil suits were pending. The Court noted that the dispute involved contested transfers and pending civil litigation over title and share, and that the function of the Act primarily centred on provision of maintenance rather than forcible dispossession. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no necessity for the extreme step for ordering the eviction of Krishna Kumar from a portion of the house rather the purpose could have been served by ordering maintenance as provided under Section 4/5 of the Senior Citizens Act and by restraining him from harassing the parents and interfering in their day-to-day life." The bench further recorded that "it does not appear to be prudent to order for his eviction" where the son paid court-ordered maintenance and limited his occupation to a small portion and a shop.

Background The dispute arose from a family feud in Sultanpur. Late Kallu Mal purchased a house (No. 778) in 1971 and, in later years, executed sale and gift deeds in favour of two daughters and a son‑in‑law; one shop was gifted to the younger daughter and let out. The appellants, Kallu Mal and his wife Samtola Devi, alleged mental and physical harassment by their eldest son Krishna Kumar and sought relief under the Senior Citizens Act in April 2019. Earlier, the Family Court in 2018 had awarded monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000 each to the parents, payable by two sons.

The Maintenance Tribunal directed limited occupation by Krishna Kumar — continuation of business from one shop and residence in one room with bathroom — and preservation of parental dignity, with eviction reserved for future misconduct. The Appellate Tribunal later set aside the SDM order and directed eviction. Krishna Kumar obtained partial relief from the High Court, which set aside the eviction direction while upholding other protective measures. The High Court’s order led to the present appeal by Samtola Devi.

The Supreme Court canvassed the evidentiary matrix, including the purchase deed of 1971, subsequent sale and gift deeds, rent agreements, the Family Court maintenance order and pending civil suits instituted by Krishna Kumar seeking declaration of a 1/6th share and cancellation of certain transfers. The bench referred to precedents including S. Vanitha and this Court’s decision in Urmila Dixit, recognising that Tribunals under the Senior Citizens Act "may order" eviction when necessary but that eviction was not an automatic or universal remedy under the statute. The Court concluded that, given competing property claims and the parents' primary entitlement to maintenance, the High Court had rightly refused to enforce the Appellate Tribunal's eviction direction. The appeal was dismissed; no further interim directions were issued beyond those already in place protecting the parents' maintenance and dignity.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 404 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26651 of 2023) Case Title: Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Pallav Shisodiya, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri S.K. Saxena, Senior Counsel