-
by sayum
18 April 2026 11:16 AM
“Eviction Is Not a Default Remedy Under the Senior Citizens Act;
Maintenance and Non-Interference Are the Law’s Focus” – In a judgment pronounced on March 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP© No. 26651 of 2023) declined to evict a son from a portion of his late father’s property, holding that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 does not make eviction a mandatory remedy. The Court noted that the house In question had already been partially transferred by the deceased father to daughters and in-laws, and no case of continued harassment was made out after earlier proceedings.
➢ “In such a situation neither Kallu Mal nor his wife retains any right to seek eviction of any person occupying any part of it.”
This deeply fractured family dispute traces back to a tragic situation where an elderly couple had fallen out with their sons, leading to multiple legal proceedings for maintenance, property, and eviction.
Kallu Mal, who passed away during the litigation, had purchased House No. 778, Khairabad, Sultanpur in 1971 and used it for his utensils business. He had three sons and two daughters.
With time, disputes erupted. Alleging abuse and neglect, Kallu Mal and his wife Samtola Devi initiated maintenance proceedings in 2017, which culminated in an order of Rs. 8,000 per month maintenance to be shared by sons Krishna Kumar and Janardan Kumar. The sons did not challenge that order.
Meanwhile, Kallu Mal gifted or sold portions of his property: a shop to his younger daughter Anjali, parts of the house to elder daughter Sushila and her husband, and plots to others. Despite this, Krishna Kumar continued residing in a small portion and running the utensils shop.
In 2019, fresh proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act sought eviction of Krishna Kumar. The Maintenance Tribunal refused eviction but warned him against harassment, while the Appellate Tribunal reversed and ordered eviction. The Allahabad High Court in 2023 restored the Tribunal’s original order, refusing eviction but allowing continued residence with conditions. Samtola Devi then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The bench, led by Justice Pankaj Mithal, delivered a candid and compassionate judgment recognizing the breakdown of family ties. The Court began by lamenting:
“In India we believe in ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’… However, today we are not even able to retain unity in the immediate family.”
Assessing the property claims, the Court found:
“It is apparent that Kallu Mal had transferred the house in favour of his two daughters and the two plots… Therefore, ex-facie he ceases to be the owner of the property.”
The Court noted that civil suits filed by Krishna Kumar challenging the gift and sale deeds were pending, and until they were decided, it could not be conclusively said that he had no share.
“Unless the dispute culminates, it cannot be said that the father was the exclusive owner… and that the son had no right or share in it.”
On the legal position under the Senior Citizens Act, the Court was emphatic: “The provisions of the Act nowhere specifically provide for drawing proceedings for eviction… It is only in view of this Court’s judgment in S. Vanitha v. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District that such power has been read into the statute.”
Reiterating that eviction is not the default remedy, the Court stressed:
“Even in Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, the Court has only held that in a given case, the Tribunal may order eviction… but it is not necessary and mandatory to pass an order of eviction in every case.”
Importantly, the Court found no evidence of recent harassment by the son, holding:
“There is no complaint or any material on record to indicate that after the order Krishna Kumar has in any way humiliated his parents.”
And since he had been paying maintenance as ordered, the Court concluded:
“If he has been living in a small portion… and is continuing with the family business without interfering with the life of others, it does not appear prudent to order his eviction.”
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision allowing the son to reside in a limited portion of the house with strict conditions, and made it clear that the Senior Citizens Act primarily enforces maintenance, not possession or property rights.
“In the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no necessity for the extreme step of ordering eviction… the purpose could have been served by ordering maintenance and restraining interference.”
The Court’s approach in this judgment reflects a balanced view between protecting elderly rights and avoiding irreversible orders amid unresolved property disputes. Ultimately, it emphasized that eviction is an exception, not a rule, under the 2007 Act.
Date of Decision: March 27, 2025
