81-year-old mother allegedly forced to leave house: SC restores son’s eviction under Senior Citizens Act

The Court restored the orders passed by the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act directing the eviction of the appellant’s son and daughter-in-law.

The Supreme Court has held that tribunals constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can order eviction of children or other occupants from a senior citizen’s property where such eviction is necessary to ensure the senior citizen’s maintenance or protection.A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the Allahabad High Court’s orders holding that authorities under the 2007 Act had no power to order eviction. The Supreme Court restored the eviction orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the District Magistrate against the appellant’s son and daughter-in-law.The Court held that the power to order eviction is implicit in the statutory scheme where such a measure is necessary to give effect to the tribunal’s jurisdiction under the Act.“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.”81-Year-Old Mother Allegedly Forced To Leave HouseThe case concerned residential premises bearing No. 8/331, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow, owned by appellant Ravi Kant Gupta. The appellant’s mother, aged about 81 years, was forced to leave the premises and reside at an old-age facility.On 05.06.2022, the appellant approached the District Magistrate under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking eviction of his son from the property. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, by order dated 15.11.2022, found that the premises was the appellant’s self-acquired property. The SDM also recorded that the appellant’s son had not permitted his grandmother to stay in the premises and had created nuisance.The SDM consequently directed the son’s eviction.The son and his wife challenged the order before the District Magistrate under Section 16 of the Act.District Magistrate Upholds Eviction OrderBy order dated 09.08.2023, the District Magistrate affirmed the SDM’s decision and directed the son and his wife to hand over possession of the premises to the appellant. They thereafter approached the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.The High Court, relying upon its earlier decision in Abhishek Tiwari v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 367, held that the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act did not have the power to order eviction. It accordingly quashed the orders dated 15.11.2022 and 09.08.2023.The appellant’s review application was subsequently dismissed on 29.01.2024, with the High Court reiterating that the authorities lacked such power.The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.SC: Act Must Be Read In Light Of Constitutional Protection Of ElderlyThe Supreme Court began by examining the broader purpose of the legislation.The Bench observed:“The measure of a civilized society is often reflected in the dignity, respect and security it affords to its elderly.”The Court referred to Article 21 of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and Article 41, which envisage a social order that protects vulnerable persons and enables individuals to live with dignity.The Bench noted that Parliament enacted the 2007 Act against this constitutional backdrop to ensure that advancing age does not become synonymous with “neglect, insecurity, or indignity.” The Court also referred to the values underlying the country’s civilizational ethos, under which parents are traditionally accorded a position of reverence.It emphasised that the legislation was enacted to provide an effective remedy to elderly persons:“The Act is intended to provide a speedy remedy for the senior citizen.”The Court therefore considered the powers of the statutory tribunal in light of this protective purpose.Tribunal’s Power Includes Necessary Powers To Make Remedy EffectiveThe central issue before the Supreme Court was whether a tribunal constituted under the Act could direct eviction when eviction was necessary for the maintenance or protection of a senior citizen.The Court examined Sections 7 and 8 of the Act.Section 7 provides for the constitution of tribunals, while Section 8 empowers them to conduct inquiries through a summary procedure and gives them the powers of a Civil Court for that purpose. The Court also noted that Section 27 expressly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters covered by the Act.Against this statutory framework, the Bench applied the settled principle that when legislation confers jurisdiction upon an authority, the authority also possesses those powers which are necessary to effectively exercise that jurisdiction. Relying upon Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 71, the Court reiterated:“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.”Applying that principle to the Senior Citizens Act, the Court held that the tribunal’s powers cannot be interpreted so narrowly that the statutory remedy becomes ineffective. The Bench therefore concluded that the tribunal has the power to order eviction where such eviction is necessary to protect a senior citizen.Eviction Can Be Incident Of Right To Maintenance And ProtectionThe Supreme Court then considered its earlier decisions dealing with the scope of the Senior Citizens Act. The Court referred to the three-Judge Bench decision in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, (2021) 15 SCC 730.In that case, while examining claims under the Senior Citizens Act alongside the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Supreme Court had held that a tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act may have the authority to order eviction where it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of a senior citizen or parent.Importantly, the Court had recognised eviction as a means of enforcing the underlying statutory right:“Eviction would be an incident of enforcement of right to maintenance and protection.”The present Bench also referred to Samtola Devi v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 669, where a two-Judge Bench held that a tribunal under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of senior citizens. The Court further referred to Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2077, which reiterated the same position.The Bench expressly endorsed these decisions, observing:“We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by this Court on multiple occasions.”Allahabad HC’s Reliance On Abhishek Tiwari RejectedThe High Court had relied on its earlier judgment in Abhishek Tiwari to conclude that the authorities under the 2007 Act lacked the power to direct eviction. The Supreme Court held that this reliance was misconceived.In view of the Supreme Court’s repeated pronouncements recognising the tribunal’s authority to order eviction when necessary for the protection and maintenance of senior citizens, the High Court’s contrary approach could not be sustained.The Court therefore held that the orders of the SDM and District Magistrate could not have been quashed merely on the ground that the authorities lacked jurisdiction to order eviction.SC Restores Orders Directing Son’s EvictionThe Supreme Court consequently set aside:

The Court restored the orders passed by the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act directing the eviction of the appellant’s son and daughter-in-law from the premises.The appeals were accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 22768/2024RAVI KANT GUPTA VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.Date of Decision: 04.08.2026Appearance: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, AORFor 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.(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)