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 from a senior citizen's property when such eviction is necessary to ensure the parent's maintenance, protection and dignity.

“…we have no hesitation in holding that the tribunal under the Act has power to order eviction in order to ensure the maintenance or protection of a senior citizen.”, observed a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe,

The Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order, which had overturned the tribunal's direction to evict the appellant's son and wife from his self-acquired property.

The judgment came in an appeal filed by Ravi Kant Gupta, the owner of a residential house in Vikas Nagar, Lucknow, against a decision of the Allahabad High Court which had set aside eviction orders passed against his son and daughter-in-law. The case arose after Gupta's 81-year-old mother was allegedly forced to leave the residential premises and reside in an old-age facility. Gupta approached the District Magistrate on June 5, 2022, seeking eviction of his son under the 2007 Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in an order dated November 15, 2022, found that the property was Gupta's self-acquired property and recorded that his son had not permitted his grandmother to stay in the house and had created a nuisance. The SDM consequently ordered the son's eviction. The District Magistrate subsequently upheld the order on August 9, 2023, directing the son and his wife to hand over possession of the premises to Gupta. The son and his wife challenged the orders before the Allahabad High Court.

The High Court, relying on an earlier decision, held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act did not empower the authorities to pass an order of eviction. It therefore quashed the orders of the SDM and District Magistrate.

Supreme Court overrules High Court's view

The Supreme Court said that the High Court erred in interfering with the tribunal's order of eviction, as it is a settled law that the tribunals are empowered to order eviction for the purpose of welfare and protection of the senior citizen.

“Under Section 7 of the Act, the tribunals have been constituted which have power under Section 8 of the Act to conduct an inquiry following a summary procedure with powers of a Civil Court. Section 27 of the Act explicitly bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. It is a well-settled legal proposition that where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution.”, the Court observed.

"The measure of a civilized society is often reflected in the dignity, respect and security it affords to its elderly. Across cultures, religions, and civilizations, senior citizens have been regarded not merely as dependents requiring care, but as repositories of wisdom, experience, and collective memory whose guidance enriches families and society alike. Article 21 of the Constitution as interpreted by this Court and Article 41 of the Constitution envisage a social order that protects the vulnerable and enables every individual to live with dignity throughout the course of life. This commitment finds statutory expression in the Act, enacted to ensure that advancing age does not become synonymous with neglect, insecurity, or indignity. In light of the aforesaid constitutional mandate, the Parliament has enacted the Act. The provisions of the Act incorporate the values deeply rooted in our country's civilizational ethos which revere the mother and the father as divine.", the Court observed, pointing out that the Act is intended to provide a speedy remedy for the senior citizen

Reference was made to the case of S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. (2021), where “a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while dealing with claims arising out of the provisions of the Act and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 held that the tribunal under the Act may have the authority to order an eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of a senior citizen or a parent. It was further held that eviction would be an incident of enforcement of right to maintenance and protection.”

The aforesaid view was reiterated in Samtola Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 445 and Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector and others, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 947 as well.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, affirming the tribunal's order of eviction of Appellant's son and wife.

Cause Title: RAVI KANT GUPTA VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 824

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Anand Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Romil Pathak, Adv. Mr. Aravind C., Adv. Mrs. Neha Pathak, Adv. Mr. Aryan Pathak, Adv. Mrs. Rashmi Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Jagrati Singh, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Udit Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Suryodaya Prakash Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Devendra Kumar Shukla, AOR Ms. Shachi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv.

Related- Senior Citizens Act Doesn't Mandate Eviction Of Children From Parents' Home In Every Case : Supreme Court Rejects Mother's Plea To Evict Son