Can senior citizens evict their children or relatives from their property? Here’s what SC held

What does the Act say?

The Senior Citizens Act allows parents (age 60 and above) who are unable to maintain themselves “from his own earning or property owned by him” to file a suit for maintenance against their children or relatives (legal heirs). It places an obligation on these children or relatives to meet the parents’ needs “so that such parent may lead a normal life”. The Act also establishes dedicated tribunals to hear these suits, along with appellate tribunals to hear challenges to any orders passed.

Crucially, Section 23 of the Act also gives parents an avenue to receive maintenance even after transferring or gifting their property. Under Section 23(1), a senior citizen may gift or transfer her property with a condition that the receiver “shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs”. If this condition is not met, the provision states that the transfer “shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence” and can be declared void if the senior citizen approaches the tribunal.

Section 23(2) states that senior citizens have a right to receive maintenance from an estate, and if this estate is transferred (wholly or partially), this right can be enforced against the new owner of the estate so long as they are made aware of this right.

How did the SC arrive at the power to evict?

In 2020, the SC was tasked with deciding a case where senior parents and their son sought to evict the daughter-in-law (DIL) from the matrimonial home under the Act. The two sides were involved in other ongoing and parallel cases, including pending divorce proceedings and a suit for maintenance filed against the husband by the DIL.

In June 2015, the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub Division, had ruled that the property in question was owned by the parents, and the DIL had no right over it as she was merely residing there.

She eventually filed an appeal before the SC in 2020. The SC eventually held that the DIL was protected from being evicted from their “shared household” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, even if she does not have a “right, title or interest in the shared household”. However, the SC also clarified whether a tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act could order an eviction.

A bench comprising then Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, alongside Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, held that a tribunal could order an eviction “if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen”. They unanimously agreed that under Section 23(2), senior citizens have the right to receive maintenance from an estate and “the power to order eviction is implicit”.

The court also put its weight behind the argument that “the Tribunal may order the eviction of a child or a relative from the property of a senior citizen, where there has been a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen”. However, the bench also clarified that the tribunal can only pass an eviction order after considering the “competing claims” in the case.

Why was eviction denied in the present case?

The court was tasked with hearing a suit filed by parents seeking to evict their son from their home, claiming that he had neglected to take care of them and was torturing them mentally and physically. In 2019, a tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act granted limited relief to the parents, ordering the son not to encroach upon any part of the house without the permission of his parents, confining him to the utensil shop he ran out of the same building and the room where he resides with his wife and children. The tribunal also stated that eviction proceedings could only be revived if the son further misbehaved or tortured his parents.

Unsatisfied with this order, the parents appealed the decision and eventually approached the Supreme Court in 2023. However, the court held that “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”. The court also clarified that “it is not necessary and mandatory to pass an order of eviction in every case”.