The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has held that the relevant date for determining whether an individual is a senior citizen under the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is the date on which the application is filed before the Maintenance Tribunal, not a later date. A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside a Bombay High Court judgment that had nullified an eviction order against a son on the grounds that he had attained the age of 60 during the course of the legal proceedings.
The court allowed the appeal of an 80-year-old father, Kamalakant Mishra, restoring the eviction and maintenance orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal against his son.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Kamalakant Mishra, an 80-year-old senior citizen, and his 78-year-old wife are parents to three children. The case revolves around two properties in Mumbai purchased by Mr. Mishra: Room No. 6, Nagina Yadav Chawl, Yadav Nagar, and one room in Raju State, Bengali Chawl, Saki Naka.
According to the facts presented, the appellant and his wife had moved to Uttar Pradesh, leaving their children in these properties. Respondent No. 3, their eldest son, described as financially sound and running a business, subsequently took possession of both properties and did not permit his parents to reside in them.
On July 12, 2023, Mr. Mishra and his wife filed an application before the Maintenance Tribunal under Sections 22, 23, and 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the ‘Act’). They sought maintenance from their son and his eviction from the two properties.
The Maintenance Tribunal, in its order dated June 5, 2024, allowed the application. It directed the son to hand over possession of both premises to his parents and to pay them a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000. The son’s subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on September 11, 2024.
High Court’s Ruling
Aggrieved by the tribunal’s decisions, the son filed Writ Petition No. 14585 of 2024 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The High Court, in its order dated April 25, 2025, allowed the petition and set aside the eviction orders.
The High Court’s decision was based on the observation that the son (born on July 4, 1964) was also a senior citizen as defined by Section 2(h) of the Act. The High Court reasoned that the Maintenance Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to pass an order for vacation of a property against another senior citizen.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court found the High Court’s reasoning to be fundamentally flawed. The bench stated, “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… This in our view is erroneous.”
The apex court clarified the correct legal position, observing, “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.”
Emphasizing the objective of the legislation, the judgment noted, “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.”
The Court cited its previous decisions, including S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 730, to reiterate that the Tribunal is empowered to order the eviction of a child from a senior citizen’s property when there is a breach of the obligation to provide maintenance.
Applying this principle to the present case, the Supreme Court concluded, “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.”
The appeal was accordingly allowed, the High Court’s judgment was set aside, and the son’s writ petition was dismissed.
Following the pronouncement of the order, counsel for the respondent requested time to vacate the premises. The Supreme Court granted two weeks for the son to furnish an undertaking that he will vacate the properties on or before November 30, 2025. The Court directed that if the undertaking is not filed within the stipulated time, the appellant would be free to have the eviction order executed immediately.
