Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice SVN Bhatti, Supreme Court
Can Tribunal Under Senior Citizens Act Order Eviction Of Persons From Premises Owned By Senior Citizens? - Supreme Court Clarifies
|The Supreme Court explained that the Tribunal ‘‘may order’’ eviction but it is not necessary and mandatory to pass an order of eviction in every case.
The Supreme Court in its recent Judgment, has clarified that the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 nowhere specifically provide for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to a senior person.
The Court clarified thus while upholding the High Court’s Judgment which set aside an Eviction Order passed by the Tribunal.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti observed, “The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere specifically provides for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior person. It is only on account of the observations made by this Court in S. Vanitha vs. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act may also order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizens. The Tribunal thus had acquired jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act which otherwise provide for treating the sale of the property to be void if it is against the interest of the senior citizen.”
The Bench explained that the Tribunal ‘‘may order’’ eviction but it is not necessary and mandatory to pass an order of eviction in every case.
Senior Advocate Pallav Shisodiya appeared on behalf of the Appellant while Senior Advocate S.K. Saxena appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
In this case, an elderly couple, aged 75 and 68, had a troubled relationship with their three sons. They alleged physical and mental torture, leading to multiple Court cases, including a maintenance case and an eviction case against their eldest son. The couple sought help under the Senior Citizens Act, but the cases were appealed multiple times, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in the above regard, noted, “It is only on account of the observations made by this Court in S. Vanitha vs. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act may also order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizens. The Tribunal thus had acquired jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act which otherwise provide for treating the sale of the property to be void if it is against the interest of the senior citizen.”
The Court added that in this case, the Appellate Tribunal has not recorded any reason necessitating the eviction of son or that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is expedient to order eviction so as to ensure the protection of the senior citizen.
“In our opinion, the Appellate Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in ordering for his eviction merely for the reason that the property belongs to Kallu Mal, completely ignoring the fact that the claim of Krishna Kumar regarding 1/6th share and the cancellation of gifts and sale deeds is pending adjudication before the civil court”, it further said.
The Court was of the opinion that there was no necessity for the extreme step for ordering the eviction of son from a portion of the house rather the purpose could have been served by ordering maintenance as provided under Section 4/5 of the Senior Citizens Act and by restraining him from harassing the parents and interfering in their day-to-day life.
“In the light of the above situation, the High Court appears to be well within its jurisdiction to set aside the eviction order passed by the Tribunal and to maintain the other conditions imposed by the Tribunal”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the High Court’s Judgment.
Cause Title- Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 404)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Pallav Shisodiya, AOR Vinod Kumar Tewari, Advocates Bhoopesh Pandey, Pramod Tiwari, Vivek Tiwari, Priyanka Dubey, and SK Warish Ali.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Sudhir Kumar Saxena, AOR Aviral Saxena, Advocates Vikas Jain, Abhinav Sharma, and Shrawani Verma.