1. Application for maintenance and eviction of a child from properties under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1975
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Kamalakant Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Additional Collector & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11780 2025(@ SLP(Civil) No. 26348 of 2025 D. No. 42786 of 2025)
Decided On : 12-09-2025
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Deeksha Saggi, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Usha Singh, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Singh, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rituparn Uniyal, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Navneet Dugar, AOR, Mr. Jainam Vimal Gadiya, Adv., Mr. Pawankumar Shrinath Pal, Adv.
For the Petitioner: Ms. Deeksha Saggi, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Usha Singh, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Singh, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rituparn Uniyal, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Navneet Dugar, AOR, Mr. Jainam Vimal Gadiya, Adv., Mr. Pawankumar Shrinath Pal, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Senior Citizens – Tribunal is well within its powers to order eviction of a child or a relative from property of a senior citizen, when there is breach of obligation to maintain senior citizen.
Headnote:
Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Sections 22, 23, and 24 – Application for maintenance and eviction of occupants from properties – Relief declined by High Court – Act was enacted to address plight of older persons, for their care and protection – Being a welfare legislation, its provisions must be construed liberally so as to advance its beneficent purpose – Tribunal is well within its powers to order eviction of a child or a relative from property of a senior citizen, when there is breach of obligation to maintain senior citizen – In present case, despite being financially stable, respondent has acted in breach of his statutory obligations in not allowing appellant to reside in properties owned by him, thereby frustrating very object of the Act – High Court fell in error in allowing writ petition on a completely untenable ground – Impugned Judgment of High Court set aside and writ petition dismissed. (Paras 7 and 8)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is aggrieved by judgment and final order of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 14585 of 2024 dated 25.04.2025 wherein appeal of respondent was allowed and order passed by Maintenance Tribunal dated 05.06.2024 and Appellate Authority dated 11.09.2024 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 directing to respondent to vacate the property was set aside.
Findings of Court:
In the event undertaking is not filed within time allowed, it will be open for appellant to get the order executed forthwith and interim protection shall stand automatically withdrawn forthwith.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Maintenance Tribunal possesses jurisdiction to order the eviction of a respondent who is also a senior citizen. (Para 4 )
3. The date of filing the application determines senior citizen status, and welfare legislation must be construed liberally to ensure the protection of older persons. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Maintenance Tribunals are empowered to order the eviction of children or relatives from a senior citizen's property upon breach of statutory maintenance obligations. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside, and writ petition dismissed, with directions for the respondent to vacate the premises. (Para 8 , 10 )
6. What is the relevant date for determining senior citizen status for an application before the Maintenance Tribunal?
The relevant date for consideration is the date of filing the application before the Tribunal. (Para 6 )
7. Does the Maintenance Tribunal have the power to order the eviction of a child from a senior citizen's property?
Yes, the Tribunal is within its powers to order the eviction of a child or relative from the property of a senior citizen when there is a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen. (Para 7 )
8. How should the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 be interpreted?
As it is a welfare legislation enacted for the care and protection of older persons, its provisions must be construed liberally to advance its beneficent purpose. (Para 7 )
ORDER :
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and final order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 14585 of 2024 dated 25.04.2025 wherein the appeal of the respondent was allowed and the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal dated 05.06.2024 and the Appellate Authority dated 11.09.2024 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 20071[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.] directing to respondent to vacate the property was set aside.
4. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:
4.1. The appellant is a senior citizen, aged about 80 years. He has a 78-year-old wife and three children who are working. Respondent No. 3 is the eldest son, he runs a business and is financially sound.
4.2. The appellant had purchased two properties of the following description:
i. Room No.6, Nagina Yadav Chawl, Yadav Nagar, Mumbai
ii. One room in Raju State, Bengali Chawl, Saki Naka, Mumbai
4.3. Appellant and his wife had moved to U.P. leaving their children behind in these properties. Respondent No. 3 had taken the properties in his possession, and he did not allow the appellant to reside in them.
4.4. On 12.07.2023, appellant and his wife filed an application under Section 22, 23, and 24 of the Act praying maintenance and eviction of the occupants from the said properties.
4.5. The Tribunal vide order dated 05.06.2024 allowed the application and directed the respondents to hand over the possession of both the premises and further directed maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to be given to the elderly parents.
4.6. Respondent No. 3 assailed the order before the Appellate Tribunal which dismissed the appeal vide order dated 11.09.2024.
4.7. Still feeling aggrieved, Respondent No. 3 preferred Writ Petition No. 14585 of 2024 before the Bombay High Court praying for setting aside of eviction orders.
4.8. The High Court vide order dated 25.04.2025 allowed the petition observing that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to pass an order for vacation of the property against a senior citizen.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.
6. The High Court in allowing the appeal has proceeded on the presumption that the respondent is also a senior citizen as per section 2(h) of the Act, as his date of birth is 04.07.1964. It observed that the Tribunal could not have allowed appellant’s complaint since it was made against another senior citizen. This in our view is erroneous. The record shows that the appellant had moved an application before the Tribunal on 12.07.2023 and at that point in time, the respondent’s age was 59 years. Relevant date for consideration would be the date of filing the application before the Tribunal.
7. The framework of the Act clearly notes that the law was enacted to address the plight of older persons, for their care and protection. Being a welfare legislation, its provisions must be construed liberally so as to advance its beneficent purpose. This Court on several occasions has observed that the Tribunal is well within its powers to order eviction of a child or a relative from the property of a senior citizen, when there is a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen.2[ S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 730 ] In the present case, despite being financially stable, the respondent has acted in breach of his statutory obligations in not allowing the appellant to reside in the properties owned by him, thereby frustrating the very object of the Act. High Court fell in error in allowing the writ petition on a completely untenable ground.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.
10. At this stage counsel for respondent has prayed for time to vacate. Considering the request, we grant two weeks’ time t
