Child Can Be Evicted From Senior Citizen Parent's Property If There's Breach Of Obligation To Maintain Parents : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that a Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, has the power to order the eviction of a child from the property of the senior citizen, if there is a breach of obligation to maintain the senior citizen.A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal filed by 80-year-old man and his 78-year-old wife,...
The Supreme Court reiterated that a Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, has the power to order the eviction of a child from the property of the senior citizen, if there is a breach of obligation to maintain the senior citizen.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal filed by 80-year-old man and his 78-year-old wife, and set aside the Bombay High Court's order which had invalidated the eviction directive passed against their eldest son.
The Court stressed that the Act was enacted to address the plight of senior citizens by ensuring their care and protection, and therefore its provisions must be construed in a manner that promotes its welfare objective.
"The framework of the Act clearly notes that the law was enacted to address the plight of older persons, for their care and protection. Being a welfare legislation, its provisions must be construed liberally so as to advance its beneficent purpose," the Court observed.
Reiterating earlier precedents, the Court reaffirmed that Maintenance Tribunals are empowered to order eviction of a child or relative when they fail to discharge their obligations towards senior citizens.
"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," the Court stated. Reference was made to the decision in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District & Ors (2021) 15 SCC 730.
The apex court found that the eldest son (Respondent No. 3), who is financially sound and runs a business, had taken possession of two properties owned by the appellant and his wife in Mumbai and refused to allow the elderly parents to reside in them after they had moved to U.P.
The Supreme Court held that the son, by preventing his parents from accessing their property, had acted in "breach of his statutory obligations" and was thereby "frustrating the very object of the Act"
The appellant, Kamalakant Mishra, an 80-year-old senior citizen, along with his 78-year-old wife, sought relief after their eldest son occupied their properties (Room No. 6, Nagina Yadav Chawl, and one room in Raju State, Bengali Chaw,Mumbai)
On July 12, 2023, the parents filed an application under Sections 22, 23, and 24 of the Act, praying for maintenance and eviction
The Tribunal had, in this case, directed eviction and ordered maintenance of ₹3,000 per month in favour of the parents on June 5, 2024, which was later upheld by the Appellate Authority on September 11, 2024.
The High Court had interfered with these orders, holding that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order eviction against the son since he too qualified as a senior citizen under the Act. The Supreme Court, however, held that this reasoning was erroneous. Clarifying the legal position, it ruled that the relevant date for determining whether a person is a senior citizen is the date on which the application is filed before the Tribunal. As the application was filed on July 12, 2023, when the son was 59 years old, he could not be treated as a senior citizen under Section 2(h) of the Act.
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the son. The Bench granted him two weeks to furnish an undertaking to vacate the premises on or before November 30, 2025, failing which the Tribunal's original order could be executed forthwith.
For the petitioners : Ms. Deeksha Saggi, Mr. Abhishek Usha Singh, Mr. Rishabh Singh, and Mr. Gaurav Mishra, Advocates, along with Mr. Rituparn Uniyal, Advocate-on-Record.
For the respondents: Mr. Navneet Dugar, Advocate-on-Record, along with Mr. Jainam Vimal Gadiya and Mr. Pawankumar Shrinath Pal, Advocates.
Case : Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector and others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 947