Protection of Senior Citizens Justifies Eviction Orders, Karnataka HC Reiterates

In a significant reaffirmation of the rights of elderly persons under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“the 2007 Act”), the Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench), in Smt. Soumya v. Smt. Ratnakumari & Ors., WP No. 104795/2025, upheld the power of the Senior Citizens Tribunal to order eviction when such relief is necessary to ensure the safety, dignity, and welfare of senior citizens.

Delivering judgment on 25 November 2025, Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by a daughter-in-law against an eviction order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, holding that the Act’s purpose would be defeated if tribunals were deprived of the incidental powers required to protect senior citizens from harassment, dispossession, or ill-treatment.

Background of the Case

Parties Involved

• Petitioner: Smt. Soumya, daughter-in-law of Respondent No.1.
• Respondent No.1: Smt. Ratnakumari, a 65-year-old senior citizen.
• Respondent No.2: Another daughter-in-law of Respondent No.1.
• Respondent No.3: Assistant Commissioner and Senior Citizens Tribunal, Ballari.

Factual Matrix

According to the record, the petitioner resided with her husband (now deceased), her children, and the senior citizen (Respondent No.1) in House No. 2, Ward No. 23, Ballari. After the death of her husband, the relationship between the petitioner and Respondent No.1 deteriorated irretrievably.

Respondent No.1 alleged before the Tribunal that:

• She and her husband were forced to live in the outhouse, while the petitioner took possession of the main house.
• The petitioner denied her entry and harassed her.
• She feared being dispossessed of her property, which she and her husband had acquired.

These allegations appear in the detailed Kannada complaint extracted in the judgment.

In light of this, Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 23 of the 2007 Act, seeking:

1. Eviction of the petitioner and her children from the property; and
2. Restoration of possession of the main residence to her.

The Assistant Commissioner, after obtaining a report and examining the material, passed an eviction order on 17.06.2025, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within 30 days and hand over vacant possession to the senior citizen.

The petitioner challenged this order before the Karnataka High Court.

Issue Before the High Court

• Does the Assistant Commissioner (Senior Citizens Tribunal) have the authority under the 2007 Act to order the eviction of the transferee/occupant to protect the welfare of a senior citizen?

Statutory Framework: Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

Section 23(1): Conditional Transfers

Where a senior citizen transfers property subject to the condition that the transferee will maintain it, and such maintenance is not provided, the transfer is deemed to be vitiated by fraud, coercion, or undue influence. The Tribunal may declare it void at the option of the senior citizen.

Section 23(2): Enforcement of Maintenance Rights

Even where the senior citizen has only a right to maintenance out of a property, and it is transferred, that right is enforceable against:

• Transferees with notice;
• Gratuitous transferees.

The provision does not exclude eviction where such enforcement requires restoration of possession.

Supreme Court Guidance: S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner (2021)

The High Court extensively relied on the Supreme Court judgment in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban (2021) 15 SCC 730, which held that:

• Tribunals under the 2007 Act may direct eviction where it is essential to protect senior citizens from neglect, harassment, or ill-treatment.
• The term “transfer” under Section 23 includes not just absolute transfers but also grants of a right or interest in property.
• Welfare legislation is to be interpreted liberally, giving primacy to the senior citizen’s right to live with dignity.

The Supreme Court emphasised that procedural or technical objections cannot undermine the 2007 Act.

This binding precedent formed the backbone of the High Court’s reasoning.

High Court’s Analysis and Findings

1. Welfare of Senior Citizens is Paramount

The Court noted that the entire factual narrative in the complaint showed severe emotional and physical distress caused to Respondent No.1:

• She was denied access to her own home.
• She was forced to live in substandard parts of the property.
• The petitioner allegedly subjected her to humiliation.

In such circumstances, the Tribunal’s intervention was not only justified but necessary. The Act is a beneficial legislation, designed to ensure the dignity and physical safety of elderly persons.

2. Tribunal Possesses Incidental and Implied Powers to Order Eviction

The Court held that limiting the Tribunal solely to declaring transfers void would defeat the statute’s purpose. Where eviction is essential to:

• Restore possession,
• Prevent harassment, or
• Ensure effective relief,

The Tribunal can—and must—grant such a remedy.

This flows from:

• Section 23 read with Section 5 (right to maintenance), and
• The broad protective object of the Act.

The Court observed that though the Act does not expressly use the word eviction, such power is implicit because, without eviction, restoration becomes impossible.

3. Findings Based on Factual Evidence

The Court reviewed the material on record, including documents produced by the senior citizen showing that the petitioner was not even residing in the disputed premises at the time.

Thus, the challenge to eviction was without merit.

4. No Error Found in the Assistant Commissioner’s Order

The Tribunal followed due procedure:

• Application under Section 23 was filed on 15.04.2025.
• A detailed report from the competent authority was obtained.
• After evaluation, eviction was directed.

The High Court found no illegality, jurisdictional error, or procedural irregularity warranting interference under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution.

5. Reiteration of Judicial Trend

The Court observed that several High Courts and the Supreme Court have upheld eviction orders under the 2007 Act where:

• Senior citizens are dispossessed.
• They are victims of cruelty, coercion, or neglect;
• Protection of life and dignity requires the removal of the harassing occupant.

Thus, the Karnataka High Court reiterated that eviction is an enforceable and legitimate relief in senior citizen welfare cases.

Conclusion

The judgment reinforces a judicial trend prioritising the welfare and dignity of elderly persons over competing property claims by children or their spouses.

By dismissing the writ petition and affirming the eviction order, the Karnataka High Court sent a clear message:

“The law will not allow senior citizens to be harassed, marginalised, or evicted from their own homes. Tribunals have full authority to order eviction where required to protect them.”

The case underscores that:

• Family members do not acquire enforceable rights merely by residence.
• Senior citizens are entitled to peaceful possession and protection.
• Courts will adopt a liberal, welfare-oriented interpretation of the 2007 Act.

In a social climate where elder neglect is increasingly reported, this judgment strengthens legal safeguards and ensures that ageing parents can seek—and obtain—timely relief.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams