Senior Citizens Act — Tribunal's Eviction Power · 10 September 2026

Shyamji Shukla v. State of U.P.: Senior Citizens Tribunal Can Evict Children Where Necessary to Protect a Parent's Life, Court Rules — But Hadn't Even Considered It

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad · 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 688; WRIT-C No. 20540 of 2026

An elderly man sought eviction of his son and daughter-in-law from his self-acquired house in Kanpur under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging atrocities and abuse and that his life and property were in danger. The son and daughter-in-law denied this, said the proceedings arose from an unmet dowry demand, relied on a compromise the father denied, and argued the house was a 'shared household' where the daughter-in-law was protected by Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act. The Tribunal directed police protection but refused eviction, holding it lacked jurisdiction to evict at all — a position the State defended by relying on two prior High Court rulings.

Justice Indrajeet Shukla held that although the Act does not expressly confer an eviction power, a Tribunal has it as an incident of enforcing a senior citizen's right to maintenance and protection where eviction is expedient to protect life and limb. Because the Tribunal had wrongly held it had no jurisdiction at all, rather than considering whether eviction was justified on the facts, the Court quashed that part of its order as unreasoned and restored the proceedings for the Tribunal to decide afresh — without itself ruling on the truth of either side's allegations. It directed the Tribunal to await the outcome of the daughter-in-law's separate, pending Domestic Violence Act complaint before proceeding against her, while leaving it free to proceed against the son in the meantime, and only after itself concluding that eviction is in fact expedient to protect the father's life and limb.

More about this case →