Kamalakant Mishra Vs Additional Collector & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court, in Kamalakant Mishra Vs Additional Collector & Ors., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) Diary No. 42786 of 2025, decided on 12 September 2025, examined the powers of a Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to direct eviction of a son from properties owned by his elderly father. The appellant, aged approximately 80 years, and his wife, aged 78 years, owned two residential premises in Mumbai. After the parents moved to Uttar Pradesh, their eldest son, who was financially independent and running a business, occupied the properties and allegedly prevented them from residing there. On 12 July 2023, the parents approached the Maintenance Tribunal under Sections 22, 23 and 24 of the Act, seeking maintenance and eviction of the occupants.
The Maintenance Tribunal, by its order dated 5 June 2024, directed the respondents to hand over possession of both premises and pay maintenance of ₹3,000 per month to the elderly parents. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the son’s appeal on 11 September 2024. However, the Bombay High Court, by its judgment dated 25 April 2025 in Writ Petition No. 14585 of 2024, set aside the eviction directions. The High Court proceeded on the premise that the son was also a senior citizen and that the Tribunal could not order eviction against another senior citizen.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had adopted an erroneous approach in determining the son’s status under Section 2(h) of the Act. Although the son’s date of birth was 4 July 1964, he was only 59 years old when the parents filed their application on 12 July 2023. The Court clarified that the relevant date for determining whether a respondent is a senior citizen is the date on which the application is filed before the Maintenance Tribunal. Consequently, the High Court’s conclusion that the proceedings were directed against another senior citizen was unsustainable.
The Court further emphasised that the Senior Citizens Act is a beneficial welfare legislation intended to secure the care and protection of elderly persons and must be interpreted liberally to advance that objective. Relying on S. Vanitha Vs Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 730, the Court reiterated that a Maintenance Tribunal may direct eviction of a child or relative from a senior citizen’s property where there is a breach of the obligation to maintain and protect the senior citizen. The financially independent son had prevented his father from residing in properties owned by him, thereby frustrating the purpose of the legislation.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgment and dismissed the son’s writ petition, thereby restoring the Maintenance Tribunal’s order. On the son’s request, the Court granted him two weeks to furnish an undertaking to vacate the premises by 30 November 2025. The Tribunal’s order was not to be enforced during this period if the undertaking was furnished. In the absence of the undertaking within the prescribed time, the father was permitted to execute the eviction order immediately, with the interim protection automatically withdrawn.
Cases Discussed
S. Vanitha Vs Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. — (2021) 15 SCC 730. Relied upon for the principle that a Maintenance Tribunal may order eviction of a child or relative where necessary to protect senior citizens and enforce their statutory rights.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
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, 20071 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 the 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 11.09.2024.
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.2 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.
Notes:
1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.
2 S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 730.
