SAMTOLA DEVIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

                 [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1235 : 2025 INSC 404

                              Samtola Devi
                                     v.
                      State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 4442 of 2025)
                                 27 March 2025
                [Pankaj Mithal* and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order
       passed by the Appellate Tribunal directing the eviction of the eldest
       son of the appellant-mother, a senior citizen from a portion of the
       house in question allegedly belonging to his deceased father.

                                   Headnotes†
       Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
       2007 – ss.23, 4, 5 – Whether the eviction of the eldest son of the
       appellant-mother (a senior citizen) from a portion of the house
       in question allegedly belonging to his deceased father, from
       where he was carrying on the utensil business was necessitated:
       Held: No – Under the Senior Citizens Act, senior citizens are simply
       entitled to maintenance rather than eviction of their son/relatives –
       The Act does not specifically provide for drawing proceedings for
       eviction of persons from any premises owned by or belonging to
       a senior person – It is only on account of the observations made
       by this Court in S. Vanitha’s case that the Tribunal under the
       Senior Citizens Act may also order eviction if it is necessary and
       expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizens – Thus,
       the Tribunal has acquired jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction
       exercising jurisdiction u/s.23 – However, the court has only held
       that in a given case, the Tribunal ‘‘may order’’ eviction but it is not
       necessary and mandatory to pass an order of eviction in every
       case – Appellate Tribunal did not record any reason necessitating
       the eviction of the eldest son or that on facts it was expedient
       to order his eviction so as to ensure the protection of the senior
       citizen – He was paying maintenance as directed by the Family
       Court – Tribunal was not justified in ordering his eviction merely
       for the reason that the property belonged to the deceased father,
       ignoring the fact that his claim of regarding 1/6th share in the
       house and the cancellation of gifts and sale deeds was pending
* Author
1236                                                          [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    adjudication before the civil court – High Court rightly set aside the
    eviction order passed by the Appellate Tribunal while maintaining
    the other conditions as imposed by the Maintenance Tribunal
    permitting him to continue living therein with the rider of drawing
    eviction proceedings if he indulged in any untoward behavior or
    interferes with the life of others. [Paras 29, 31-33]

                             Case Law Cited
    S. Vanitha v. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. [2020]
    12 SCR 1057 : (2021) 15 SCC 730 – relied on.
    Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors. [2025] 1 SCR 105 : (2025)
    2 SCC 787 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
    Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

                             List of Keywords
    Senior citizens; Protection of the senior citizen; Interest of the
    senior citizen; Maintenance Tribunal; Eviction order; Eviction
    proceedings; Eviction of son/relatives of the Senior citizens; Mental
    and physical torture; Not to encroach upon any part of house;
    Grant of maintenance; Harassing the parents; Abuses the parents;
    Self-acquired property; Peaceful living; Owner of property; Humiliate
    or torture; Cancellation of gifts and sale deeds.

                            Case Arising From
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4442 of 2025
    From the Judgment and Order dated 18.08.2023 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in WRITC No.
    35884 of 2019

                        Appearances for Parties
    Advs. for the Appellant:
    Pallav Shisodiya, Sr. Adv., Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, Bhoopesh
    Pandey, Pramod Tiwari, Vivek Tiwari, Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Sk
    Warish Ali, Ms. Saumya Mishra.
    Advs. for the Respondents:
    Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Sr. Adv., Aviral Saxena, Abhinav Sharma,
    K Aditya Singh, Shashank Kumar Srivastava.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                      1237

              Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Pankaj Mithal, J.

1.   Leave granted.
2.   In India we believe in “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” i.e. the earth, as a
     whole, is one family. However, today we are not even able to retain
     the unity in the immediate family, what to say of building one family
     for the world. The very concept of ‘family’ is being eroded and we
     are on the brink of one person one family.
3.   This is an unfortunate case where parents are in litigation with their
     children (sons) and the children (sons) are in litigation with their
     parents.
4.   One Kallu Mal (dead) aged about 75 years and his wife Samtola
     Devi aged about 68 years had three sons and two daughters namely
     Krishna Kumar, Janardan Kumar, Rajender Kumar, Sushila Gupta
     and Anjali Kumari respectively. Out of the two daughters, Sushila
     Gupta is married to Suresh Narottam Das Gupta whereas Anjali
     Kumari is unmarried. The said Kallu Mal has a house bearing No.
     778 in Khairabad, Sultanpur and various shops therein, precisely
     three shops in the lower part of the house. One of the shops is
     occupied by the elder son Krishna Kumar who is presently carrying
     on the utensil business from the said shop which he had taken over
     from his father. The other son Janardan is doing electrical business
     from the other shop. The third son Rajender Kumar is dead and
     his wife has remarried whereas his son is living with the eldest son
     Krishna Kumar. The third shop has been gifted by Kallu Mal to the
     younger daughter Anjali Kumari, who has rented it out at the rate of
     Rs. 26,500/- per month. Apart from the above house and three shops,
     late Kallu Mal had certain other properties as well.
5.   It appears that the relations of Kallu Mal and his wife Samtola Devi
     were not cordial with their sons. Consequently, on 04.08.2014, Kallu
     Mal made an application to the SDM, Sadar of District Sultanpur
     alleging that his eldest son Krishna Kumar often beats him and tortures
     him mentally and physically. He has friendship with people having
     criminal antecedents. He often abuses him. His behaviour resultantly
1238                                                         [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                                    Supreme Court Reports


       deteriorated his position in the society. Therefore, requesting the
       SDM to take appropriate action against him in accordance with law.
6.     In 2017, Kallu Mal along with his wife Samtola Devi initiated
       proceedings for grant of maintenance against their two sons which
       came to be registered as Criminal Case No.828 of 2017 before the
       Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur. The Family Court vide order
       dated 04.12.2018 awarded maintenance of Rs 4,000/- to Kallu Mal
       and his wife Samtola Devi each, total Rs.8,000/- per month payable
       equally by two sons Krishna Kumar and Janardan Kumar by the
       7th day of each calendar month. Aforesaid order is final and conclusive
       as it has not been challenged till date by any party in any higher
       forum.
7.     It appears that the two daughters of Kallu Mal started interfering in
       the family matters concerning him, his wife Samtola Devi and his
       two sons. The eldest daughter Sushila Gupta got a gift deed of the
       lower part of northern portion of the aforesaid House No.778 in her
       favour. She even got the sale deed executed of the southern part of
       the house in a favour of her husband Suresh Narottam Das Gupta.
8.     Apart from the above, the two daughters managed for the transfer
       of a residential plot by their father Kallu Mal in favour of one Amrita
       Singh vide sale deed dated 14.12.2017. Another plot of 121 sq.
       meter was transferred vide sale deed dated 20.03.2019 in favour of
       Suresh Narottam Das Gupta, the husband of the eldest daughter.
9.     It also appears that the eldest son Krishna Kumar married in 2018
       to a girl from another caste/clan, as such Kallu Mal and his wife got
       annoyed with him.
10. In the light of the aforesaid background, Kallu Mal and his wife
    Samtola Devi initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and
    Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 20071 on 29.04.2019
    before the Maintenance Tribunal, Sub-Division Tehsil Sadar District
    Sultanpur. The Tribunal registered it as Case No.2527 of 20192.
    The Tribunal referred the matter to the Conciliation Officer but the
    conciliation was unsuccessful.



1    Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Senior Citizens Act’
2    Kallumal etc vs. Krishna Kumar
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                     1239

                 Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.


11. Kallu Mal in the said case alleged that House No.778 Khairabad,
    Sultanpur is his self-acquired property which has shops in the lower
    part. In one of the shops, he was operating his utensil business
    since 1971 till 2010. Taking advantage of his illness, the business
    of the said shop was taken over by his eldest son Krishna Kumar
    who later started pressurizing him to sell out the house. He further
    alleged that Krishna Kumar was not looking after his daily needs,
    not even his medical expenditure, rather was torturing him mentally
    and physically. Therefore, he requested the Tribunal to evict him
    from the house so that he could make his own arrangements for
    peaceful living.
12. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the entire evidence on record
    and noting the submission of the parties vide order dated 08.07.2019,
    directed Krishna Kumar not to encroach upon any part of the house
    without the permission of his parents except the shop in which he
    is carrying utensil business and the room with a bathroom occupied
    by him in which he resides with his wife and children. It was also
    provided that if he humiliates his parents then eviction proceedings
    would be initiated against him. The two sons Krishna Kumar and
    Janardan Kumar were directed to continue to pay maintenance to
    the parents, as directed by the Family Court. The Incharge of Police
    Station Kotwali Nagar was directed to visit the house of Kallu Mal
    either himself or through regional Sub-Inspector every 10 days so
    as to enquire if they are living peacefully and that no humiliation or
    harassment is caused to the parents by Krishna Kumar.
13. Kallu Mal and his wife Samtola Devi were not satisfied by the above
    decision and as such they preferred appeal before the Appellate
    Tribunal, District Magistrate Sultanpur. The Appellate Tribunal set
    aside the order passed by the SDM and directed for the eviction of
    Krishna Kumar.
14. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, Krishna Kumar invoked Writ
    Jurisdiction of High Court by filing Writ-C No.35884 of 20093. The
    High Court partly allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the
    order of eviction passed against Krishna Kumar but maintained the
    other directions given by the Tribunal.



3   Krishna Kumar vs. State of UP and Ors
1240                                                        [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


15. During the pendency of the above proceedings, Kallu Mal died and
    the litigation is being pursued by his wife Samtola Devi since then.
    Thus, Samtola Devi has filed this appeal seeking eviction of her son
    Krishna Kumar from the house in question after setting aside the
    order of the High Court.
16. We have heard Shri Pallav Shisodiya, learned senior counsel for
    the appellant and Shri SK Saxena, learned senior counsel for the
    respondents.
17. Shri Pallav Shisodiya, learned senior counsel on behalf of the
    appellant-Samtola Devi contended that since the house-in-dispute/
    property is the self-acquired property of her husband late Kallu Mal,
    the respondent No.4 Krishna Kumar, the eldest son of the appellant,
    had no authority of law to stay and reside in the said house against
    the wishes of his parents, more particularly, when he had been
    mentally and physically torturing them and was not caring to the day-
    to-day needs and the maintenance of the parents. He relied upon the
    recent decision of this Court in Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit
    & Ors.4 to contend that in proceedings under the Senior Citizens
    Act, the Tribunal is empowered, if necessary, to order the eviction
    of the son/relative if found expedient to ensure the protection of the
    senior citizens.
18. Shri SK Saxena, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
    No.4-Krishna Kumar submitted that the entire story, as alleged by
    the appellant/parents, is concocted and is not true. Krishna Kumar
    is living only in a one room portion with attached bathroom and is
    not occupying any other place in the house except one shop on
    the ground floor wherein he is continuing with the utensil business
    of his father who was unable to carry on the same on account of
    his infirm and ill-health. He had been maintaining the parents and
    is even paying the maintenance as awarded by the Family Court.
    The said Krishna Kumar has a share in the said house and it does
    not exclusively belong to his father. He has not only filed a Suit
    No.944/2019 for the cancellation of the gift deed executed by his
    father in favour of the unmarried daughter but has also filed another
    Suit No.140/2019 to declare him to be the co-owner of the said
    property to the extent of 1/6th share in it. Therefore, it is not correct


4   (2025) 2 SCC 787
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                      1241

              Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.


     to allege that the property exclusively belongs to Kallu Mal and that
     he has no legal right to reside therein.
19. Kallu Mal has brought on record the copy of the sale deed dated
    16.07.1971 by which he had purchased the property/house-in-dispute.
    Krishna Kumar, on the other hand, had brought on record the copy of
    the gift deed executed by Kallu Mal in favour of her younger daughter
    Anjali in respect of one of the shops as also the rent agreement
    executed by Anjali letting out the shop in favour of Mohd. Ijhar and
    Mohd. Shadab on 03.11.2017. A copy of the sale deed executed by
    Kallu Mal in favour of his son-in-law in respect of Plot No.179 was
    also placed on record. The copy of the order of the Family Court
    fixing maintenance under Section 125 was also adduced in evidence
    as also the copy of the Suit No.140/2019.
20. It is also part of the record that Kallu Mal had transferred a plot of
    land in favour of one Amrita Singh, wife of Manoj Kumar vide sale
    deed dated 14.12.2017. Another plot measuring about 121 sq. mt.
    was sold by him in favour of his son-in-law Suresh Narottam Das
    Gupta on 20.03.2019.
21. It has come in the evidence on record as admitted by the younger
    daughter Anjali that one shop has been given by Kallu Mal to her
    which she has let out and that the house has also been gifted partly
    to her and partly to her elder sister Sushila. She also admitted that
    her father had sold a plot of land to Amrita Singh and to his son-in-
    law Suresh Narottam Das Gupta.
22. Janardan Kumar, the other son of Kallu Mal, in his statement before
    the Tribunal admits that his father had filed a suit for maintenance
    against both the sons and that they are paying maintenance according
    to the order passed by the Family Court. He even stated that he would
    not claim any right or share in the property in future. He admits that
    since Krishna Kumar abuses the parents, the entire dispute would
    be resolved if he vacates the property.
23. A similar statement was made by Anupriya, the wife of Janardan
    Kumar.
24. The aforesaid documents prima facie indicate that the property
    was purchased by Kallu Mal in 1971. He had transferred the same
    partly in favour of his elder daughter and partly in favour of his son-
    in-law whereas one shop in the ground floor has been gifted to the
1242                                                      [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     younger daughter. That apart, institution of the two suits by Krishna
     Kumar for cancellation of the gift deed/sale deed and the suit for
     declaration of his 1/6th share in the property indicates that there is
     a contest between the parents and Krishna Kumar as to whether
     the father could have executed a gift and sale deed as alleged or
     if the son had 1/6th share therein. So, 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.
25. Additionally, 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. Therefore,
    in such a situation neither Kallu Mal nor his wife retains any right to
    seek eviction of any person occupying any part of it.
26. In view of the facts as revealed from the pleadings and the evidence
    adduced by the parties, it is apparent that Kallu Mal had transferred
    the house in favour of his two daughters and the two plots, one in
    favour of his son-in-law and the other to stranger Amrita Singh.
    He had gifted one shop to the younger daughter Anjali. Therefore,
    ex-facie he ceases to be the owner of the property and it is up to
    the purchasers to initiate eviction proceedings, if any, against the
    occupants of any part of it.
27. It is in this background coupled with the fact that under the Senior
    Citizens Act, senior citizens are simply entitled to maintenance
    rather than eviction of their son/relatives that the Tribunal disposed
    of the matter with the categorical direction that Krishna Kumar would
    continue to occupy and carry on business from the shop in question
    and at the same time would reside only in a one room portion with
    attached bathroom without encroaching upon any other part of the
    house.
28. It was only in the contingency of Krishna Kumar not behaving properly
    or continuing to humiliate or torture the parents that the eviction
    proceedings would be necessary against him.
29. 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. It
    is not in dispute that he has been paying maintenance as directed
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                      1243

                Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.


     by the Family Court. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, if he
     has been living in a small portion of the house, may be of his father,
     in which he has no share and is continuing with the family business
     from the shop on the ground floor without interfering with the life of
     others, it does not appear to be prudent to order for his eviction as
     after all being a son he also has an implied license to live therein.
     Therefore, the Tribunal appears to be justified in permitting him to
     continue living therein with the rider of drawing eviction proceedings
     if he indulges in any untoward behavior or interferes with the life
     of others.
30. The Senior Citizens Act vide Chapter-II provides for maintenance of
    parents and senior citizens. It inter alia provides a senior citizen or
    a parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or
    the property owned by him shall be entitled to make an application
    against his parent or grand parent or against one or more of his
    children (not a minor) or where the senior citizen is issueless against
    specified relatives to fulfil his needs to enable him to lead a normal
    life. The Tribunal constituted under the Act on such an application
    may provide for the monthly allowance for the maintenance and
    expenses and in the event they fail to comply with the order, the
    Tribunal may for breach of the order issue a warrant for levying fines
    and may sentence such person to imprisonment for a term which may
    extend to one month or until payment is made whichever is earlier.
31. The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere specifically
    provides for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any
    premises owned or belonging to such a senior person. It is only on
    account of the observations made by this Court in S. Vanitha vs.
    Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors5 that the Tribunal
    under the Senior Citizens Act may also order eviction if it is necessary
    and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizens. The
    Tribunal thus had acquired jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction
    while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Senior Citizen
    Act which otherwise provide for treating the sale of the property to
    be void if it is against the interest of the senior citizen.
32. The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in Urmila Dixit
    (supra). However, even in the aforesaid case the court has only held


5   (2021) 15 SCC 730
1244                                                       [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


     that in a given case, the Tribunal ‘‘may order’’ eviction but it is not
     necessary and mandatory to pass an order of eviction in every case.
     The Appellate Tribunal has not recorded any reason necessitating
     the eviction of Krishna Kumar or that in the facts and circumstances
     of the case, it is expedient to order eviction so as to ensure the
     protection of the senior citizen.
33. In our opinion, the Appellate Tribunal was, therefore, not justified
    in ordering for his eviction merely for the reason that the property
    belongs to Kallu Mal, completely ignoring the fact that the claim of
    Krishna Kumar regarding 1/6th share and the cancellation of gifts and
    sale deeds is pending adjudication before the civil court.
34. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was
    no necessity for the extreme step for ordering the eviction of Krishna
    Kumar from a portion of the house rather the purpose could have
    been served by ordering maintenance as provided under Section
    4/5 of the Senior Citizens Act and by restraining him from harassing
    the parents and interfering in their day-to-day life.
35. In the light of the above situation, 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.
36. The judgment and order of the High Court dated 18.08.2023 is
    well considered, equitable and justified. It has rightly set aside the
    appellate order passed by the Tribunal.
37. The civil appeal is accordingly dismissed.

     Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey