New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that Tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can order the eviction of children or relatives from property owned by senior citizens where they fail to maintain their parents.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered this significant ruling while upholding an 80-year-old father’s plea seeking eviction of his 61-year-old son from two rooms in Mumbai.
The court emphasized that the Act is a piece of welfare legislation intended to protect the dignity and well-being of the elderly, and must be given a liberal interpretation to serve that purpose.
The case arose after an 80-year-old father and his 78-year-old wife approached the Tribunal, stating that their eldest son, despite being financially capable, had occupied their self-acquired properties and prevented them from residing in them. They sought both maintenance and eviction.
The Tribunal ordered eviction of the son and directed payment of monthly maintenance. However, the Bombay High Court later set aside the eviction order, holding that the son had by then turned 60 and thus the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
Rejecting this reasoning, the Supreme Court clarified: “The relevant date to determine whether a person qualifies as a senior citizen under the Act is the date of filing of the application. In this case, the respondent was 59 years old when proceedings began, and hence the Tribunal’s jurisdiction was valid.”
The Court observed that eviction is not an automatic consequence but a discretionary power that Tribunals may exercise where circumstances justify it. “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,” the Bench stated.
Accordingly, the apex court restored the Tribunal’s eviction order and directed the son to hand over possession of the properties to his parents by November 30, 2025. The Court also made it clear that failure to vacate would invite coercive execution proceedings.
Case Title: Kamalakant Mishra & Ors. vs. Additional Collector & Ors.
Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.
