Senior Citizens’ Welfare Law Allows Eviction Of Relatives For Breach: Supreme Court
The top court said that the tribunal has the power to order the eviction of a child from the property of a senior citizen.
By Sumit Saxena
Published : September 25, 2025 at 5:13 PM IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that when there is a breach of obligation in maintaining a senior citizen, a tribunal, set up under the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is well within its powers to order eviction of a child or a relative from the property of the senior citizen.
The order was passed by a bench comprising justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta earlier this month. The bench, in an order passed on September 12, said the framework of the Act clearly notes that the law was enacted to address the plight of older persons, for their care and protection.
The bench said that being a welfare legislation, its provisions must be construed liberally so as to advance its beneficent purpose.
“This court on several occasions has observed that the tribunal is well within its powers to order eviction of a child or a relative from the property of a senior citizen, when there is a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen," said the apex court.
The bench said in the present case, despite being financially stable, the respondent has acted in breach of his statutory obligations in not allowing the appellant to reside in the properties owned by him, thereby frustrating the very object of the Act.
The apex court decided to allow a plea filed by Kamalakant Mishra against the Bombay High Court order. The high court had set aside the tribunal's direction to evict one of his three sons, a businessman, from the properties bought by him in Mumbai, saying the son was also a senior citizen.
“The high court in allowing the appeal has proceeded on the presumption that the respondent is also a senior citizen as per section 2(h) of the Act, as his date of birth is (in the year 1964)….It was observed that the tribunal could not have allowed the appellant’s complaint since it was made against another senior citizen. This, in our view, is erroneous," said the apex court.
“The High Court fell into error in allowing the writ petition on a completely untenable ground. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the high court is set aside," said the apex court.
Mishra, 80, with his wife, 78, had moved to Uttar Pradesh, leaving their children behind properties in Mumbai. Respondent no. 3, Mishra’s oldest son, had taken the properties into his possession, and he did not allow the appellant to reside there.
On the appellant’s plea, the tribunal directed the eviction of the son and payment of Rs 3,000 to the appellant. The eldest son challenged this order before the High Court. The high court in April 2025 allowed the petition, observing that the tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to pass an order for vacation of the property against a senior citizen.
The apex court said, “The record shows that the appellant had moved an application before the Tribunal on 12.07.2023 and at that point in time, the respondent’s age was 59 years. Relevant date for consideration would be the date of filing the application before the tribunal”.
The respondent’s counsel requested for some time to vacate the premises.
“Considering the request, we grant two weeks’ time to the respondent to furnish an undertaking that he will vacate the premises on or before 30th November 2025 and in the meantime, the order of the Tribunal will not be given effect to. In the event the undertaking is not filed within the time allowed, it will be open for the appellant to get the order executed forthwith, and the interim protection shall stand automatically withdrawn forthwith," said the apex court.
Also Read
