A senior citizens tribunal can remove a son or relative from your home, but the power is narrow and discretionary. The tribunal must first ask whether maintenance and a restraint order will protect you. Eviction comes only when nothing else will.
Short answer: Not automatically. A senior citizens tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 can order eviction, but it is not bound to. The Supreme Court held in March 2025 that eviction is a discretionary, last-resort measure. The main remedy is maintenance. A tribunal evicts a son or relative only where it is genuinely needed to protect the senior, such as ongoing harassment or torture, not in every case.
Short on time? Jump to the comparison table below to see when eviction is on the table and when it is not.
The table below sets out the line the courts now draw. It reflects Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 404, decided 27 March 2025.
| Situation | Can the tribunal order eviction? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| You need money for food, medicine, rent | Usually no, maintenance is the remedy | Eviction is not the tool for financial neglect. Sections 4 and 5 give a maintenance order up to Rs 10,000 per month. |
| Your son ignores you but you are safe at home | No, not on its own | The Act nowhere makes eviction automatic. Para 31 of Samtola Devi confirms this. |
| You gifted property to a child on a promise of care, and the care stopped | The transfer can be declared void, and eviction may follow | Section 23 lets the tribunal cancel the transfer. Urmila Dixit confirms eviction can follow, but it is not mandatory. |
| You face continuing harassment, threats or torture in your own home | Yes, where eviction is the only way to protect you | Eviction is allowed as a protective last resort, not a routine order. |
| Eviction is sought as punishment, or to settle a family dispute | No | The tribunal must protect the senior, not arbitrate property wars. |
The core rule: the tribunal may order eviction. It is not necessary or mandatory to pass an eviction order in every case. That is the holding of Samtola Devi, clarifying the earlier Urmila Dixit ruling.
Two Supreme Court rulings sit side by side.
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, 2025 INSC 20, decided 2 January 2025, confirmed that authorities under Section 23 can cancel a property transfer made on a condition of care, and can order eviction and restore possession to the senior citizen.
Some readers took that to mean eviction follows in every Section 23 case. Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 404 corrected that reading. The bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti held that the Act does not provide for automatic eviction.
Para 31 of Samtola Devi records that the Act “nowhere specifically provides for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior person.”
Para 32 then clarifies that even under Urmila Dixit a tribunal “may order eviction but it is not necessary and mandatory to pass an order of eviction in every case.”
So eviction power exists. It is just not the default. The tribunal must weigh whether maintenance and protection orders are enough first.
If you want a tribunal to evict a child or relative, you cannot simply point to neglect. You need to show eviction is needed to protect you.
A bare wish to remove a son will not succeed. The tribunal protects the senior, it does not punish the relative.
If you live in the home and a senior parent has filed against you, do not assume you will be evicted.
Devi, age 74, lives with her son in a house she owns.
He stopped giving her money and was often rude. Devi filed before the senior citizens tribunal asking that he be evicted.
The tribunal found neglect, but no continuing torture or threat to her safety. It ordered the son to pay Rs 8,000 per month maintenance and not to harass her. It refused eviction, because money and a restraint order met her need.
A year later the son turned violent, locking Devi out of rooms and threatening her. She returned to the tribunal with police complaints and a neighbour's statement. This time the tribunal found eviction was the only way to keep her safe, and ordered him out.
Same family, two outcomes. The difference was whether eviction was needed to protect her, exactly the line Samtola Devi draws.
You can use the Right to Information Act 2005 to strengthen a senior citizen tribunal matter.
Use the AI RTI Drafter to write a clean application in minutes.
No. The Supreme Court held in Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 404, that eviction is not automatic. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 nowhere makes eviction mandatory. A tribunal may order it, but only where it is genuinely needed to protect the senior, such as continuing harassment. The main remedy is maintenance.
No. Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, 2025 INSC 20, confirmed that authorities under Section 23 can cancel a transfer made on a condition of care and order eviction. But Samtola Devi clarified that even under Urmila Dixit a tribunal “may order eviction” and it is not necessary or mandatory in every case. Eviction stays discretionary.
Maintenance. Under Sections 4 and 5, a senior citizen or parent can claim a monthly maintenance order from children or relatives. The state sets the ceiling under Section 9, currently up to Rs 10,000 per month in most states. Eviction is a separate, last-resort protective measure, not the primary remedy.
When eviction is the only way to protect the senior citizen. Continuing harassment, threats, or torture in the shared home are the kind of facts that justify it. If a maintenance order and a no-harassment direction will protect the senior, the tribunal will prefer those. Eviction is the extreme step, taken when softer remedies fail.
Yes. A relative can challenge a tribunal eviction order before the appellate authority and the High Court. Courts have set aside eviction orders, as in Samtola Devi, where eviction was not necessary and maintenance plus protection would have served. The order must rest on a finding that eviction was needed to protect the senior.
You may be able to. Section 23 lets the tribunal declare void a transfer made on a condition that the transferee would provide care, if that care stops. Urmila Dixit confirmed the tribunal can cancel the transfer and restore possession. Eviction can follow, though it remains discretionary. See the guide on whether a gift deed can be revoked.
Yes. File an RTI under the RTI Act 2005 to the District Magistrate or tribunal office for your case status, hearing dates, and certified copies of orders. You can also ask the police for the status of harassment complaints, and the local authority for the state maintenance ceiling under Section 9. The AI RTI Drafter helps you write it.
This guide is general information, not legal advice. For your specific case, consult a lawyer. Reviewed by Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak, 2026.