Kallu Mal (deceased) and his wife, Samtola Devi wanted to evict their son, Krishna Kumar, from this house under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senor Citizens Act 2007. They claimed this property as Kallu Mal’s self-acquired asset, though portions had been transferred to his daughters and son-in-law. Krishna Kumar occupied a shop and a room, alleging a 1/6th share in the property. He was fettered by the Tribunal with conditions yet allowed to stay, then later the Appellate Tribunal ordered eviction and though this was rescinded in High Court. The Supreme Court resolved that, looking S. Vanitha v. Commissioner, the emphasis of the Act is on maintaining senior citizens and not on evictions needed only for protection. Because Krishna Kumar’s civil suits challenging property transfers had not been settled, the question of eviction was premature. Krishna Kumar had been paying maintenance and hadn’t troubled his parents again since the Tribunal’s initial decree, so the Court confirmed High Court’s decision. It reminded that the Act concentrates on maintenance, rather than ejectment, unless safety issues arise.