Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3222

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, JASPREET SINGH, SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, JJ.
Onkar Nath Gaur and Another - Petitioners
Versus
District Magistrate/President Appellate Tribunal Lko. and others – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 612 of 2024
Decided On : 27-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Anurag Narain Srivastava.
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Abhinav Pankaj, Avinash Pandey, Indra Prakash, Mahendra Pratap Pandey, Vijay Krishna Dwivedi.

The Maintenance Tribunal lacks authority to order eviction, retaining jurisdiction for civil courts; only under specific conditions of void transfers can it restore possession to senior citizens.

Headnote:(A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 7, 21, and 23 - Powers of Maintenance and Appellate Tribunal - Core question addressed was whether these authorities can order eviction of children or relatives of senior citizens or parents. The Tribunal is not empowered to order eviction, which should remain within the purview of civil courts unless a transfer is deemed void as per Section 23, where the Tribunal may restore possession. (Paras 160, 161)

(B) The Act recognizes the right of senior citizens to live with dignity and ensures their welfare while mandating protective measures by the State. (Paras 21, 22, 23)

(C) In several previous judgments, it was consistently ruled that Maintenance Tribunals do not possess eviction powers, reinforcing a structure where disputes regarding property ownership must be resolved in civil courts, ensuring due process. (Paras 102-105, 159)

Table of Content
1. importance of the act of 2007 (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. divergent views on tribunal's eviction powers (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments supporting eviction rights under the act (Para 10 , 11 , 18)
4. state's obligation for protection of senior citizens (Para 19 , 21 , 22)
5. union's perspective on eviction powers (Para 23 , 26 , 27)
6. court's interpretation of act's intent (Para 40 , 41 , 42)
7. power of tribunal for eviction under section 23 (Para 89 , 90)

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

This judgment has been divided into segments to facilitate analysis. These are:-

A	Introduction
B	Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner.
C	Submissions on Behalf of the State of U.P.
D	Submissions on Behalf of the Union of India.
E	Submissions on Behalf of the Members of the Bar.
F	Discussions and Analysis
F.1	Question Nos. (i) and (ii)
F.2	Question No. (iii).
G	Summary and Answers to the Questions Referred.

A. Introduction

1. Questions of seminal importance arising from The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2007”) are the subject matter of consideration of this Full Bench.

2. More often than not, matters are coming up before the courts arising out of the Act of 2007 where the issue is in respect of the powers of the Maintenance Tribunal or/and Appellate Tribunal to pass an order of eviction of children, relative or any third person from the property of the senior citizen/the parent.

3. There were divergent views amongst the learned Single Judges of this Court. However, what assumed significance was the fact that there were contrary Division Bench decisions as well. In one such matter i.e., petition bearing No. 612 (A-227) of 2024 (Onkar Nath Gaur and Another Vs. D.M/President, Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow and 2 others), the learned Single Judge noticed the dichotomy in the decisions of the Division Benches wherein one view expressed was that under the Act of 2007, the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal do not have the power to order eviction or dispossession. This view was expressed in Ms. Swaraj Varun and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another ; 2020 (11) ADJ 646 (DB) and Bipraji Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others ; 2021 SCC OnLine All. 964.

4. However, a later Division Bench took the view that an order of eviction can be passed in certain cases and circumstances in Shivani Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others ; 2023 (6) ADJ 496 (DB) wherein the Court went on to overrule two other decisions of learned Single Judges of this Court in Abhishek Tiwari v. State of U.P. , 2022 SCC OnLine All 367 and Khushboo Shukla Vs. District Magistrate, Lucknow and others 2021 SCC OnLine All 794. However, the Division Bench in Shivani Verma (Supra) did not notice the earlier two Division Bench cases of Ms. Swaraj Varun (Supra) and Bipraji Singh (Supra)

5. Thus, noticing the schism in the views expressed by the Division Benches and the variance in views expressed by several single Judges in their respective decisions without considering the impact of the Division Bench judgments and noticing the importance of the questions involved, the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 15^th February, 2024 framed four questions and referred the matter to be answered by a Larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.

6. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the following questions have been referred for consideration of this Full Bench:-

“(i) What is the true scope and powers of the maintenance Tribunal constituted under Section 7 of the Act of 2007 which is contained in Chapter-II of the Act of 2007 and whether the Tribunal in exercise of its power in context with Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Act of 2007would be empowered to pass an order of eviction while deciding an application preferred before it in terms of Section 5 of the Act of 2007?

(ii) What would be the true scope and power of the District Magistrate who exercises power as an Appellate Tribunal in terms of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act of 2016 [sic] and w