Supreme Court Restores Elderly Parents' Property Rights, Orders Son's Eviction

The Supreme Court of India, on September 12, 2025, ordered the eviction of a son from his senior citizen parents’ house, emphasizing the provisions of the senior citizens Act that aim to protect older individuals. The ruling came in a case involving Mr. Mishra and his wife, who were prevented by their eldest son from entering their homes upon their return from their native place.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, as a welfare legislation, should be interpreted broadly to advance its beneficial purpose. The court also noted that it has observed on several occasions that the Tribunal is well within its powers to order the eviction of a child or relative from the property of a senior citizen when there is a failure to fulfill the obligation to maintain the senior citizen.

The case in the Supreme Court was filed by Mr. Mishra, a senior citizen aged 80 years, and his wife, who is 78 years old. The couple has three children, all of whom are employed. The dispute arose with their eldest son, a financially sound businessman. Mr. Mishra had purchased two properties in Mumbai, Maharashtra—one in Yadav Nagar and the other in Bengali Chawl, Saki Naka. When he moved to Uttar Pradesh (UP) with his wife, he entrusted the care of these properties to his children. The eldest son took charge of these properties.

After a while, when Mr. Mishra and his wife returned from UP with the intention of residing in their own properties, they were denied access to both properties by their eldest son. The conflict ultimately led to a legal dispute. On July 12, 2023, Mr. Mishra and his wife filed an application before the senior citizens tribunal under Sections 22, 23, and 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, asking for maintenance and eviction of the occupants from the said properties.

On June 5, 2024, the tribunal allowed the application and directed the respondents (the eldest son, occupant) to hand over the possession of both premises. Additionally, it directed the eldest son to pay a maintenance of Rs 3,000 per month to his elderly parents. Against the senior citizen tribunal’s order, the eldest son filed an appeal before the senior citizen appellate tribunal, which dismissed the appeal on September 11, 2024. The eldest son then filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 14585 of 2024) before the Bombay High Court, requesting the setting aside of eviction orders.

On April 25, 2025, the Bombay High Court allowed the petition by observing that the senior citizen tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to pass an order for vacation of the property against a senior citizen. Mr. Mishra, feeling aggrieved by the high court’s order, filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered this judgment on September 12, 2025. The Supreme Court stated that the Bombay High Court in allowing the appeal had proceeded on the presumption that the respondent (the eldest son) is also a senior citizen as per section 2(h) of the Act, as his date of birth is July 4, 1964. Thus, the high court observed that the tribunal could not have allowed the appellant’s complaint since it was made against another senior citizen.

The Supreme Court clarified that this was erroneous. The record shows that the appellant had moved an application before the tribunal on July 12, 2023, and at that point in time, the respondent’s age was 59 years. The relevant date for consideration would be the date of filing the application before the tribunal.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the framework of the senior citizens 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 to advance its beneficent purpose. The court also noted that on several occasions, it has observed that the tribunal is well within its powers to order the 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.

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. The high court fell into error in allowing the writ petition on a completely untenable ground.

The Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Mishra’s (senior citizen father’s) appeal is allowed, and the Bombay High Court’s judgment is set aside. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of. At this stage, counsel for the respondent (elder son) has prayed for time to vacate. Considering the request, the court grants two weeks’ time to the respondent to furnish an undertaking that he will vacate the premises on or before November 30, 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 (Mr. Mishra) to get the order executed forthwith, and the interim protection shall stand automatically withdrawn forthwith.