Supreme Court Declines Eviction Under Senior Citizens Act: “Implied Licence to Reside” Cannot Be Revoked Without Just Cause and “No Necessity for the Extreme Step”
Safiya Malik
The Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal seeking the eviction of a son from a disputed residential property, stating the nuanced limitations of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti.
The Court affirmed that the Maintenance Tribunal's directive allowing the son to reside in a specific portion of the house was lawful, given the lack of conclusive ownership and absence of further misconduct following prior orders. The Bench noted, "There is no complaint or any material on record to indicate that after the aforesaid order Krishna Kumar has in any way humiliated his parents especially the appellant or has interfered with her living." The appeal was consequently dismissed.
The matter involved an appeal filed by Samtola Devi, a senior citizen and widow of Kallu Mal, who had originally initiated legal proceedings alongside her late husband. The crux of the dispute pertained to House No. 778 in Khairabad, Sultanpur, alleged by the appellants to be the self-acquired property of Kallu Mal.
Kallu Mal and Samtola Devi had three sons—Krishna Kumar, Janardan Kumar, and the deceased Rajender Kumar—and two daughters, Sushila Gupta and Anjali Kumari. Disputes arose between the parents and their sons, particularly Krishna Kumar, whom they accused of abuse and neglect.
In 2014, Kallu Mal filed an application before the SDM, Sultanpur, alleging physical and mental abuse by Krishna Kumar. This led to proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. In 2017, the couple initiated a maintenance suit against Krishna Kumar and Janardan Kumar. The Family Court, Sultanpur, by an order dated 04.12.2018, granted Rs. 4,000 per month each to the parents, a decision that was not challenged by any party.
Subsequently, the Maintenance Tribunal took up the matter under the Senior Citizens Act, resulting in a 2019 order allowing Krishna Kumar to continue residing in one room with an attached bathroom and carrying on business from a ground-floor shop. However, the order included a warning that any further humiliation of the parents would prompt eviction proceedings. Police oversight was also mandated to ensure compliance.
Dissatisfied with the limited relief, the parents appealed to the District Magistrate, who ordered Krishna Kumar's eviction. This order was partially set aside by the High Court of Allahabad in Writ-C No. 35884 of 2009, maintaining other directions of the Tribunal.
The appeal before the Supreme Court was pursued by Samtola Devi after the demise of Kallu Mal. Senior counsel Pallav Shisodiya, appearing for the appellant, argued that the property being self-acquired, the son had no legal right to reside in it against the wishes of his parents.
He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors., which permitted eviction under the Act where necessary.
On the contrary, Krishna Kumar, represented by senior counsel S.K. Saxena, contended that he resided in only one room and operated his father's utensil business from a shop. He stated that he had been complying with the maintenance order and had initiated legal proceedings—Suit No. 944/2019 for cancellation of a gift deed and Suit No. 140/2019 for declaration of a 1/6th share in the property. He submitted that the house was not exclusively owned by Kallu Mal and that a civil court would determine the proprietary rights.
Evidence submitted included:
- Sale deed dated 16.07.1971 proving Kallu Mal’s purchase of the house.
- Gift deeds and rent agreements showing parts of the property transferred to daughters and a tenant.
- Statements from other family members confirming property transfers and disputes.
The Tribunal had originally based its order on these documents, which showed that Kallu Mal had transferred parts of the house to his daughters and son-in-law and gifted one shop to Anjali Kumari. One plot was transferred to a third party, Amrita Singh, and another to son-in-law Suresh Narottam Das Gupta.
Notably, Janardan Kumar, another son, stated before the Tribunal that he would make no claim on the property and that disputes would end if Krishna Kumar vacated. His wife, Anupriya, made similar statements.
The Supreme Court observed that although the property was originally purchased by Kallu Mal in 1971, subsequent transfers reduced his ownership, which raised questions over his legal standing to seek eviction.
The Bench recorded, "If the contention of the parents is accepted that the house-in-dispute/property is the self-acquired property of Kallu Mal and belongs exclusively to him, since he has transferred the property in favour of his daughters and the son-in-law Suresh Narottam Das Gupta, he has ceased to be the owner of the property."
The Court further noted that the son's claims to a share in the property and his pending suits indicated a genuine dispute requiring adjudication by a civil court. As recorded in the judgment, "Unless the aforesaid dispute culminates, it cannot be said that the father was the exclusive owner of the property and that the son had no right/share in it."
Addressing the powers of the Maintenance Tribunal, the Court stated, "The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere specifically provide for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior person." It referred to previous case law, including S. Vanitha vs. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., to clarify that while eviction orders may be issued, such power is not mandatory.
In the present case, the Court found no evidence of further harassment by Krishna Kumar after the Tribunal’s initial order. "In the facts and circumstances, if he has been living in a small portion of the house... and is continuing with the family business from the shop... it does not appear to be prudent to order for his eviction," the judgment read.
The Bench stated that Krishna Kumar had an "implied license" to live in the property, especially in the absence of misconduct or violation of maintenance orders.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court dated 18.08.2023, which had set aside the eviction order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and retained other directives of the Maintenance Tribunal. The Bench stated, "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."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Shri Pallav Shisodiya, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri S.K. Saxena, Senior Advocate
Case Title: Samtola Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 404
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 26651 of 2023)
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
[Read/Download order]
