Senior Citizens Act Tribunals may order eviction when necessary to protect senior citizens.

The petitioner, Prashant Jain, was raised and financially supported by his paternal aunts, Usha Rani and another respondent. He resided in their residential property and operated a business from their shop.

In 2023, the aunts, aged approximately 80 and 70 years, initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking his eviction from the residential house and shop. The Maintenance Tribunal allowed their application by order dated 10 May 2024. The petitioner’s appeal under Section 16 of the Act was dismissed by the District Magistrate, Nainital, on 9 June 2026. He thereafter filed the present writ petition challenging both orders and seeking protection from dispossession.

Whether the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, had jurisdiction to order the eviction of the petitioner, a relative of the senior citizens, from their residential property and shop.

Whether the orders of eviction passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

The Court applied the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, particularly its provisions concerning the maintenance and protection of parents and senior citizens and Section 23 relating to transactions affecting senior citizens’ property.

Although the Act does not expressly provide for eviction proceedings, the Court relied on S. Vanitha v. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, as recognized in Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 669, for the principle that a tribunal may order eviction where it is necessary and expedient to protect a senior citizen and enforce the right to maintenance.

The Court also relied on Ravi Kant Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Diary No. 22768 of 2024, decided on 4 August 2026, which affirmed that eviction may be ordered when necessary for the maintenance and protection of a senior citizen.

The petitioner contended that the Maintenance Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to evict a child or relative from immovable property. The Court rejected this objection, finding that the petitioner had been supported by his aunts since childhood, occupied their house, and conducted business from their shop, thereby attracting a corresponding duty to provide them emotional and financial support.

Since the aunts were elderly and the petitioner was allegedly creating problems rather than supporting them, the Tribunal was justified in directing his eviction to secure their peaceful residence and protection.

Applying the principles in Samtola Devi and Ravi Kant Gupta, the Court held that eviction could constitute an incident of enforcing the senior citizens’ right to maintenance and protection, notwithstanding the absence of an express eviction provision in the statute.

Finding valid reasons in the Tribunal’s order and no ground for interfering with the appellate decision, the Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to restrain the respondents from implementing the eviction orders.