The Supreme Court has reiterated that tribunals constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 have the power to order the eviction of children or other occupants from a senior citizen's property when such a step is necessary to ensure the elderly person's maintenance and protection.
While setting aside orders of the Allahabad High Court that had quashed eviction directions issued against a son and daughter-in-law of an elderly property owner, a bench of justice PS Narasimha and justice Alok Aradhe held that the power to order eviction flows from the statutory scheme of the 2007 Act and can be exercised where eviction is necessary to safeguard the welfare and dignity of a senior citizen.
The Court said it had 'no hesitation' in holding that a tribunal under the Act can order eviction to ensure the maintenance or protection of a senior citizen.
Dispute Involved 81-year-old Woman
The case arose from a dispute concerning a residential property in Vikas Nagar, Lucknow, owned by Ravi Kant Gupta.
Mr Gupta approached the district magistrate on 5 June 2022, seeking the eviction of his son under the 2007 Act. The dispute arose after Mr Gupta's 81-year-old mother was allegedly compelled to leave the house and stay at an old-age facility.
According to the case record, Mr Gupta alleged that his son did not allow his elderly mother to remain in the house and created a nuisance.
The sub-divisional magistrate, in an order dated 15 November 2022, found that the property belonged to Mr Gupta as his self-acquired property. The authority also recorded the allegations concerning the treatment of his mother and directed the son's eviction.
The district magistrate subsequently upheld the decision on 9 August 2023, directing the son and his wife to vacate the premises and hand over possession to Mr Gupta.
The son and daughter-in-law challenged the orders before the Allahabad High Court.
Allahabad HC Had Held Eviction Power Did Not Exist
The High Court relied on an earlier judgment to hold that authorities exercising powers under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act did not have the jurisdiction to order eviction.
It consequently quashed the orders passed by the sub-divisional magistrate and district magistrate. Mr Gupta's subsequent review petition was also dismissed.
The matter then reached the Supreme Court. The apex court disagreed with the High Court's interpretation and restored the eviction orders.
Power To Evict Follows from Tribunal's Statutory Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court examined the structure of the 2007 Act. It noted that Section 7 provides for the constitution of tribunals, while Section 8 gives them the power to conduct inquiries through a summary procedure and exercise powers similar to those of a civil court.
At the same time, Section 27 expressly bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters covered by the Act.
The bench relied on the established legal principle that when legislation grants an authority jurisdiction to perform a particular function, it also carries the implied power to take measures that are necessary to effectively exercise that jurisdiction.
On that basis, the court held that the tribunal's authority to ensure the maintenance and protection of senior citizens necessarily includes the ability to order eviction where circumstances warrant it.
SC Relies on Earlier Three-judge Bench Ruling
The court also referred to the Supreme Court's earlier decision in S Vanitha vs Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Others (2021).
In that case, a three-judge bench had held that a tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act could order eviction where it was necessary and expedient to protect the maintenance and welfare of a senior citizen or parent.
The earlier judgment had also recognised eviction as a measure connected with enforcement of a senior citizen's right to maintenance and protection.
The bench noted that this position had subsequently been followed in Samtola Devi vs State of UP & Others (2025) and Kamalakant Mishra vs Additional Collector and Others (2025).
The Supreme Court said the Allahabad High Court's reliance on its earlier contrary view was therefore misplaced in light of the consistent line of authority from the apex court.
‘Civilised Society’ Judged by Treatment of Elderly
The Supreme Court placed the statutory provisions in the broader context of constitutional protections for elderly and vulnerable persons.
The bench said the way a society treats its elderly reflects its commitment to dignity, respect and security. Senior citizens, it observed, are not merely people requiring support but also repositories of experience, wisdom and collective memory.
"The measure of a civilized society is often reflected in the dignity, respect and security it affords to its elderly," the court observed.
It further said that Article 21 of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and Article 41 reflect a constitutional vision of protecting vulnerable people and enabling individuals to live with dignity throughout their lives.
The Court said the 2007 Act gives statutory effect to that constitutional commitment.
It stressed that advancing age should not become synonymous with 'neglect, insecurity, or indignity'.
The bench also referred to the values underlying the legislation, observing that its provisions reflect India's civilisational ethos of reverence for parents.
Speedy Remedy Intended for Senior Citizens
The Supreme Court said Parliament enacted the 2007 legislation to provide senior citizens with a speedy remedy against neglect and insecurity.
The eviction power, the court held, cannot be viewed in isolation from this purpose. Where continued occupation of a property by a child or another person jeopardises the senior citizen's welfare or protection, an eviction order can therefore be an appropriate measure under the Act.
However, the ruling does not mean that every dispute between parents and children automatically results in eviction. The power is linked to the statutory objective of ensuring the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen.
