Son's Right to Shelter Considered: Supreme Court Refuses Eviction Under Senior Citizens Act Amid Property Dispute.


27 March 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court of India, in a recent case of Samtola Devi v/s State of Uttar Pradesh & Others highlighting the complexities of familial disputes and the rights of senior citizens, has dismissed an appeal seeking the eviction of an elderly woman's son from a portion of their shared property. The judgment underscores that while the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act) aims to protect the elderly, eviction is not a mandatory remedy and should be considered judiciously, especially when property ownership is under dispute.

The case involved Samtola Devi, pursuing litigation after the demise of her husband Kallu Mal, against her son Krishna Kumar. The family history revealed a fractured relationship, with Kallu Mal having previously accused Krishna Kumar of abuse and securing a maintenance order against him and another son from the Family Court.


 

 

Subsequently, Kallu Mal and Samtola Devi initiated proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, seeking Krishna Kumar's eviction from their house, claiming it was Kallu Mal's self-acquired property and that Krishna Kumar was harassing them. The Maintenance Tribunal initially allowed Krishna Kumar to reside in a specific portion of the house and continue his utensil business from a shop within the premises, while also directing him to refrain from harassing his parents.

However, the Appellate Tribunal, swayed by the argument that the property belonged to Kallu Mal, ordered Krishna Kumar's eviction. This decision was partially overturned by the High Court, which set aside the eviction order while upholding the other restrictions imposed by the Tribunal. Samtola Devi then approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision.

The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, delved into the factual matrix of the case. Notably, the court observed that Kallu Mal had, over time, transferred significant portions of the property, including parts of the house to his daughters and son-in-law, and a plot of land to a third party. He had also gifted a shop to his younger daughter.

The court pointed out that Krishna Kumar had also initiated civil suits claiming a share in the property and seeking the cancellation of the gift and sale deeds executed by his father. These pending legal battles raised questions about the exclusive ownership of the property by Kallu Mal.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court referred to its previous rulings, including S. Vanitha vs. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. and Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors., which established that Tribunals under the Senior Citizens Act have the power to order eviction if necessary for the protection of senior citizens. However, the court emphasized that this power is discretionary and not to be exercised in every case.

The bench noted that the Appellate Tribunal had ordered eviction solely based on the premise that the property belonged to Kallu Mal, completely disregarding the pending civil suits filed by Krishna Kumar challenging the property transfers. The Supreme Court opined that in such a scenario, where ownership is contested, and the father had already transferred a significant portion of the property, neither Kallu Mal nor his wife retained an absolute right to seek eviction of an occupant.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that the primary objective of the Senior Citizens Act is to ensure the maintenance and well-being of elderly parents who are unable to support themselves. The Act provides mechanisms for securing monthly allowances and penalizing non-compliance. Eviction, the court stated, is an extreme step to be taken when absolutely necessary for the safety and security of the senior citizen.

In the present case, the Supreme Court found no evidence to suggest that after the initial order of the Tribunal, Krishna Kumar had engaged in any further harassment or mistreatment of his mother. It was also undisputed that he was complying with the maintenance order issued by the Family Court. Considering these factors, the court deemed the High Court's decision to set aside the eviction order as "well considered, equitable and justified."

The Supreme Court concluded that in the given circumstances, ordering eviction from a small portion of the house, where the son was also running the family business and not interfering with his mother's life, was not prudent. The Tribunal's initial order, permitting him to reside in a specific area with a condition of potential eviction upon misbehavior, was considered a more balanced approach.

The dismissal of the appeal reinforces the principle that while the Senior Citizens Act provides crucial safeguards for the elderly, it should not be used as a tool to settle wider property disputes within families. The focus remains on ensuring maintenance and a peaceful life for senior citizens, with eviction being a measure of last resort when their safety and well-being are genuinely threatened.


Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007