This landmark Supreme Court judgment reinforces the welfare-centric intent of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It affirms that tribunals can order eviction of children or relatives who fail to maintain senior citizens, ensuring their dignity, protection, and peaceful enjoyment of property against neglect or exploitation.
1. Facts in Brief
- The appellant is an 80‑year‑old senior citizen, with a wife aged 78, and three children.
- The appellant had purchased two premises in Mumbai, which he and his wife later vacated and moved to Uttar Pradesh, leaving the children in occupation.
- The eldest son (Respondent No. 3), who is financially sound, took possession of both properties and refused to allow the appellant to reside there.
- On 12 July 2023, the appellant filed claims under Sections 22, 23 and 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking:
(a) maintenance
(b) eviction of the respondents from the properties. - The Tribunal (first instance) on 5 June 2024 directed the respondents to hand over possession and also awarded maintenance of ₹3,000/month.
- The Appellate Authority (under the Act) dismissed the appeal on 11 September 2024.
- The respondent son challenged those orders via a writ petition (W.P. No. 14585/2024) before the Bombay High Court, which allowed the petition on 25 April 2025, holding that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order eviction of a “senior citizen” (assuming respondent was also one).
- The appellant then filed this Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court.
2. Issues & Reasoning Considered by the Supreme Court
2.1 High Court’s Jurisdictional Error
- The High Court’s reasoning hinged on a presumption that Respondent No. 3 was also a senior citizen (based on his date of birth) and thus the Tribunal could not evict him.
- The Supreme Court held this was erroneous: what matters is the date of filing of the application before the Tribunal, and at that relevant moment, the respondent was 59 years old (i.e. not a senior citizen under the Act).
- Therefore the High Court’s ground for setting aside eviction was factually and legally flawed.
2.2 Statutory Scheme & Purpose (Welfare Legislation; Beneficent Construction)
- The Court emphasized that the Act is a welfare legislation enacted to protect senior citizens and should be construed liberally to advance its objectives.
- The Supreme Court reaffirmed that “on several occasions” it has held that Tribunals under the Act have power to order eviction of a child or relative from property belonging to a senior citizen, when there is a breach of the obligation to maintain that senior citizen. (It cites S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, 2021 SCC decision)
- In the facts of this case, the respondent (though financially able) refused to permit the appellants to live there, frustrating the very purpose of the Act.
2.3 Disposition & Orders
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and dismissed the writ petition.
- It restored the orders of the Tribunal and Appellate Authority directing eviction and maintenance.
- The Court granted the respondent two weeks’ time to furnish an undertaking to vacate by 30 November 2025; until then, the Tribunal order would not be given effect.
- If the undertaking is not filed, the appellant is entitled to execute the eviction order forthwith, and interim protection would automatically stand withdrawn.
3. Legal Significance
- A High Court that nullifies an eviction order under the Act on the ground that the occupant is also a senior citizen must examine the relevant date of application, not presumption from date of birth.
- The power of the Tribunal under the Act to evict children or relatives from a senior citizen’s property, in case of default / breach of maintenance obligations, is re‑affirmed by the Supreme Court.
- The court signals a pro‑senior citizen bias in interpreting the Act (beneficent construction), especially to ensure that rights of elderly persons are not frustrated by technical or incorrect legal reasoning.
- The Supreme Court granted a reasonable period to comply with the eviction order (via undertaking) before execution.
4. Full Text of Supreme Court Judgment: Kamalakant Mishra vs Additional Collector & Ors. (2025)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO…………………….….2025 (@SLP(CIVIL) NO…………………D. NO.42786 OF 2025) KAMALAKANT MISHRA …APPELLANT VERSUS ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR & ORS. …RESPONDENTS O R D E R 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, 2007 (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 th 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 1.09.2024. 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 (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 to the respondent to furnish an undertaking that he will vacate the premises on or before 30th November 2025 and in the meantime, the order of the Tribunal will not be given effect to. In the event the undertaking is not filed within the time allowed, it will be open for the appellant to get the order executed forthwith and the interim protection shall stand automatically withdrawn forthwith. ………………………………..J. [VIKRAM NATH] ………………………………..J. [SANDEEP MEHTA] NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 12, 2025 SLP(CIVIL) D.NO.42786/2025