Can Senior Citizens’ Tribunal Order Eviction of Children? Supreme Court Says Yes

The Supreme Court has held that a tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is empowered to order the eviction of children or relatives from a senior citizen's property if they fail to provide maintenance.

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta pointed out that the Act's framework clearly shows it was enacted to protect and care for older persons. "Being a welfare legislation, its provisions must be construed liberally so as to advance its beneficent purpose," the bench observed.

Court noted that it has on "several occasions" held 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".

An appeal was filed by 80-year-old Kamlakant Mishra against the Bombay High Court's order of April 25, 2025. The high court had set aside an order for the eviction of Mishra's son from his one-room property in Mumbai. The high court had allowed the son's petition, observing that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to pass an order for the vacation of the property against another senior citizen.

The bench noted that the high court had proceeded on the presumption that the respondent (the son) was also a senior citizen as per Section 2(h) of the Act, since his date of birth is July 04, 1964. The high court had 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," the Supreme Court bench 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".

Court found that, despite being financially stable, the son had acted in breach of his statutory obligations by not allowing the appellant to reside in his own properties, thereby frustrating the very object of the Act. The bench stated that "The High Court fell in error in allowing the writ petition on a completely untenable ground".

Court granted the respondent’s request and allowed him two weeks to furnish an undertaking that he will vacate the premises on or before November 30, 2025. Court said that in the meantime, the tribunal's order will not be given effect to.

The bench further held that 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.

As per the facts of the matter, the appellant and his 78-year-old wife had three children. The present respondent, the eldest son, ran a business and was financially sound. The appellant had purchased two one-room properties in Mumbai. The appellant and his wife had moved to Uttar Pradesh, leaving their children in these properties. The present respondent had taken possession of the properties and did not allow the appellant to reside in them. On July 12, 2023, the appellant and his wife filed an application under Sections 22, 23, and 24 of the Act, seeking maintenance and eviction of the occupants from the said properties. The tribunal, by its order on June 05, 2024, allowed the application and directed the respondents to hand over possession of both premises and further directed monthly maintenance of Rs 3,000 to be given to the elderly parents. 

Case Title: Kamalakant Mishra Vs Additional Collector & Ors

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta