Supreme Court Refuses Eviction of Son Under Senior Citizens Act Amidst Property Dispute

The present civil appeal arose agrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh, which had partly allowed a writ petition filed by the eldest son, Krishna Kumar, setting aside the eviction order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act).

The dispute originated between Kallu Mal (deceased) and his wife Samtola Devi (the appellant) and their sons, primarily Krishna Kumar, concerning their residential house and shops in Sultanpur. The parents had alleged harassment and lack of maintenance by Krishna Kumar, leading them to seek his eviction from the self-acquired property of Kallu Mal. Prior to this, a Family Court had already ordered Krishna Kumar and his brother to pay monthly maintenance to their parents.

The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in ordering the eviction of the eldest son, Krishna Kumar, from his parents' self-acquired property under the Senior Citizens Act, especially considering the ongoing civil suits wherein the son claimed a share in the property and challenged the transfer of properties by his father to his daughters and son-in-law.

The Supreme Court observed that while it had previously held in S. Vanitha vs. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. and Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors. that a Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of senior citizens, it clarified that such eviction is not a mandatory measure in every case.

The Apex Court noted that the father, Kallu Mal, had already transferred the majority of his properties to his daughters and son-in-law, and the son had filed suits claiming a share and challenging these transfers. The Court also highlighted that the Maintenance Tribunal had initially allowed the son to reside in a portion of the house and continue his business from a shop, subject to him not harassing his parents and continuing to pay maintenance.

Importantly, there was no subsequent complaint of harassment by the son after the Tribunal's initial order. The Court opined that the Appellate Tribunal had erred in ordering eviction merely based on the property belonging to the father, ignoring the pending property disputes and the fact that the son was complying with the maintenance order. The Supreme Court also acknowledged the concept of an "implied license" of a son to live in his parent's house.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision and held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, ordering the eviction of Krishna Kumar was not necessary, and the purpose of the Senior Citizens Act could be served by ensuring maintenance and restraining him from harassment, as initially directed by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court found the High Court's judgment to be well-considered, equitable, and justified in setting aside the eviction order.

CORAM: JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL AND JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI
BETWEEN: SAMTOLA DEVI VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. 2025 INSC 404
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27-03-2025