Ravi Kant Gupta Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Senior Citizens Tribunal Can Order Eviction Where Necessary for Protection and Maintenance; Supreme Court Restores Eviction from Father’s Self-Acquired House
Issue Before the Court
Whether authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 have the power to order eviction from residential premises where such relief is necessary to ensure a parent’s or senior citizen’s maintenance and protection.
The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative, holding that eviction can be an incident of enforcing the statutory right to maintenance and protection.
Facts of the Case
The appellant owned a residential house at Vikas Nagar, Lucknow. The dispute involved his son and wife.
The appellant’s mother, aged approximately 81 years, had been forced to leave the premises and reside in an old-age facility.
On 5 June 2022, the appellant approached the District Magistrate under the 2007 Act, seeking eviction of his son.
Following inquiry, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate found that the house was the appellant’s self-acquired property and that the son had prevented his grandmother from residing there and created nuisance.
By an order dated 15 November 2022, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the son’s eviction.
Appellate Authority Affirmed Eviction
The son and the appellant’s wife challenged the order before the District Magistrate under Section 16 of the Act.
The District Magistrate affirmed the order on 9 August 2023 and directed the son and wife to hand over possession of the premises to the appellant.
They thereafter approached the Allahabad High Court.
High Court Held That the Act Conferred No Eviction Power
The High Court relied on its earlier decision in Abhishek Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine All 367, and held that the authorities were not empowered to order eviction under the Act.
On that basis, it quashed both the original and appellate orders. The appellant’s review application was also dismissed.
The central issue before the Supreme Court therefore concerned the existence of jurisdiction to grant eviction, rather than merely the manner in which that jurisdiction had been exercised.
Protection of the Elderly Includes Dignity and Residential Security
The Supreme Court situated the Act within the constitutional commitment reflected in Articles 21 and 41.
It observed that the protection afforded to elderly persons must encompass dignity, respect and security, ensuring that advancing age does not expose them to neglect or indignity.
The Act was enacted to provide a speedy remedy. Its provisions had to be understood in a manner capable of achieving that protective purpose.
A Statutory Power Carries the Means Necessary for Its Effective Exercise
The Court noted that Section 7 provides for constitution of Tribunals, while Section 8 enables inquiry through summary procedure with specified Civil Court powers. It also referred to the bar on Civil Court jurisdiction under Section 27.
Applying the principle recognised in Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi, the Court explained that when legislation confers jurisdiction, it impliedly confers the powers essentially necessary to make that jurisdiction effective.
On this reasoning, the Tribunal has power to order eviction where required to secure a senior citizen’s maintenance or protection.
The absence of an express general eviction provision could not be treated as disabling the Tribunal from granting relief necessary to fulfil the Act’s purpose.
Earlier Supreme Court Decisions Already Recognised the Power
The Court relied on the three-Judge Bench ruling in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, (2021) 15 SCC 730.
That decision recognised that eviction may be ordered where it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of a senior citizen or parent, as an incident of enforcing those rights.
The Court also referred to Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 669, and Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector, which reiterated the protective eviction power.
It expressed agreement with these decisions and held that the High Court’s reliance on its contrary ruling was misconceived.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s judgment and review order, and restored the authorities’ eviction orders.
No costs were awarded.
Author’s Comments
The ruling confirms that the Act’s protective jurisdiction is not confined to directing periodic monetary payments. Residential security may itself be necessary for meaningful maintenance and protection, particularly where family conduct makes continued occupation unsafe or oppressive.
However, the governing requirement remains necessity for protection or maintenance. The order should not be understood as granting an automatic right to evict every family member merely because the property belongs to a parent.
The facts here included findings that the house was self-acquired, nuisance had been created and an elderly grandmother had been prevented from living there. The Supreme Court restored relief against that background.
Equally, since S. Vanitha concerned interaction with domestic-violence protections, this decision should not be presented as extinguishing competing statutory rights in every case. Its clear holding is that the Tribunal possesses eviction power and must exercise it within the Act’s protective purpose and the applicable legal framework.
Cases Discussed
- Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 71 — implied and incidental powers necessary to exercise statutory jurisdiction effectively.
- S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 730 — eviction as an incident of enforcing maintenance and protection, subject to competing rights under the Domestic Violence Act.
- Abhishek Tiwari and Another v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 367 — contrary Allahabad High Court ruling relied upon by the High Court and disapproved in the present order.
- Samtola Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 669 — power to order eviction where necessary and expedient to protect senior citizens.
- Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine 2077 — reiteration of the protective eviction jurisdiction under the 2007 Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 06.10.2023 in Writ-C No. 8139 of 2023 and the order dated 29.01.2024 in Civil Misc. Review Application No. 128 of 2023, passed by the High Court1. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant relevant facts need mention which are stated infra.
4. The appellant is the owner of residential house bearing No. 8/331, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (premises). The respondent no. 4 is the son of the appellant whereas respondent no. 5 is the wife of the appellant. The mother of the appellant is aged about 81 years. She was forced to leave the premises and was forced to reside at an old age facility. On 05.06.2022, the appellant preferred an application before the District Magistrate under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the Act) seeking eviction of respondent no. 4 (son).
5. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) by an order dated 15.11.2022 inter alia held that the premises is the self-acquired property of the appellant and the son did not permit the mother of the appellant, namely, his grandmother to stay in the premises and created nuisance. The SDM directed eviction of the son from the premises.
6. The son and the wife preferred an appeal under Section 16 of the Act before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate by an order dated 09.08.2023, affirmed the order passed by the SDM and ordered the son and the wife to handover the possession of the premises to the appellant. The son and the wife, thereafter, approached the High Court by way of filing a writ petition namely, Writ-C No. 8139 of 2023. The High Court on 06.10.2023 noted that learned Single Judge2 has held that the Act did not empower the authorities to pass an order of eviction. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the orders dated 15.11.2022 and 09.08.2023 and allowed the writ petition.
7. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a review application which was dismissed on 29.01.2024 by the High Court reiterating the lack of power in authorities of ordering eviction under the Act. In the aforesaid factual background this appeal has been filed.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent nos. 1 to 3 as well as the respondent no. 4 and have perused the records.
9. The measure of a civilized society is often reflected in the dignity, respect and security it affords to its elderly. Across cultures, religions, and civilizations, senior citizens have been regarded not merely as dependents requiring care, but as repositories of wisdom, experience, and collective memory whose guidance enriches families and society alike. Article 21 of the Constitution as interpreted by this Court and Article 41 of the Constitution envisage a social order that protects the vulnerable and enables every individual to live with dignity throughout the course of life. This commitment finds statutory expression in the Act, enacted to ensure that advancing age does not become synonymous with neglect, insecurity, or indignity. In light of the aforesaid constitutional mandate, the Parliament has enacted the Act. The provisions of the Act incorporate the values deeply rooted in our country’s civilizational ethos which revere the mother and the father as divine. The Act is intended to provide a speedy remedy for the senior citizen.
10. Under Section 7 of the Act, the tribunals have been constituted which have power under Section 8 of the Act to conduct an inquiry following a summary procedure with powers of a Civil Court. Section 27 of the Act explicitly bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. It is a well-settled legal proposition that where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution3. On this analogy, we have no hesitation in holding that the tribunal under the Act has power to order eviction in order to ensure the maintenance or protection of a senior citizen.
11. It is noteworthy that a three-Judge Bench of this Court4, while dealing with claims arising out of the provisions of the Act and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 held that the tribunal under the Act may have the authority to order an eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of a senior citizen or a parent. It was further held that eviction would be an incident of enforcement of right to maintenance and protection. Taking into account the aforesaid observations, a two-Judge Bench of this Court5, held that tribunal under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of senior citizens. Another two-Judge Bench of this Court6 reiterated the same view.
12. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by this Court on multiple occasions. The reliance placed by the High Court on its decision7 is misconceived.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment dated 06.10.2023 passed in Writ-C No. 8139 of 2023 and the order dated 29.01.2024 passed in Civil Misc. Review Application No. 128 of 2023 are set aside and the orders passed by the authorities under the Act ordering eviction are restored.
14. In the result, the appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. The civil appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
3. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
