IMPORTANT POINT
Tribunal under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has authority to order eviction to ensure maintenance and protection of senior citizens.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal assails the order dated 03.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No. 907 of 2023, stemming from Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case no. 7851 of 2022. The High Court thereby allowed the appeal filed by Respondent nos. 8 and 9 and set aside the order passed by Single judge dated 20.07.2023. Effectively the High Court has set aside the eviction order passed against Respondent Nos. 8 and 9.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are summarised as follows:

3.1 The Appellant, a retired Junior Engineer who was employed with the Bihar State Housing Board was handed over the possession of property number G/626, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, in Patna by virtue of the Plot possession Report issued on 28.01.1982, during his employment. Subsequently by the Deed of lease in perpetuity dated 20.07.1992, the property was transferred to Appellant by the Bihar State Housing Board. On 30.04.2009, the Appellant superannuated from service and started earning monthly pension of Rs.4,789/-. To supplement his income, he constructed 20 rooms on the subject property, renting them out at rates between Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/- per room per day. He is presently residing with his wife in a rental flat at Kankarbagh in Patna which is his permanent residence. They are sustaining themselves from the rental income from subject property which is being run in the name of ‘Preeti Rest House’. They have three sons.

3.2 Respondent nos. 8 Ravi Shankar and 9 Minu Kumari are Appellant’s third son and daughter-in-law, respectively. They got married on 14.06.2018 and briefly resided at the Appellant’s residence. Later they stayed at parental house of Respondent No. 9 at Bazar Samity in Patna while they used to visit Appellant at regular intervals. The Appellant contends that in 2021, Respondent no. 9, his daughter-in-law started creating discord in the relationship between Respondent no. 8 and him, allegedly instigating Respondent no. 8 to seize Appellant’s properties, including the subject property.

3.3 The Appellant claims that Respondent no. 8 initially requested access to one room in the subject property temporarily on the assurance that he will seek alternative accommodation. Subsequently Respondent no. 9 also started living in this room along with their child aged 4 years. She allegedly encroached upon two additional rooms in the subject property by breaking the lock, coupled with threats of false implication in criminal cases to Appellant. The Appellant further alleges that she created obstacles for other people staying at Rest house. Currently Respondent No. 8 and 9 are occupying three rooms at the subject property.

3.4 Aggrieved by this situation, Appellant lodged a complaint against Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 at Kankarbagh police station at Patna. Allegedly as a counterblast, Respondent No. 8 filed complaint against the Appellant, his family members and the staff working at Rest house stating that Appellant has thrown his wife and daughter from home and his family is pressuring him to leave his wife because she belongs to other caste. Further, on 08.12.2021, he filed civil suit for partition seeking partition of subject property claiming that it is an ancestral property. However, Appellant states that he has not received any notice in the said suit.

4 Considering the above circumstances, on 11.12.2021 the Appellant filed application under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [The Act] (“Act”) [The DV Act] with prayer to remove the illegal encroachment on the subject property by Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 and to protect him and his wife from mental and physical harassment. The Chairman, Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar (“Maintenance Tribunal”) on 16.04.2022 ruled in favour of Appellant, and ordered the eviction of Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 from the subject property. The Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 challenged the eviction order by filing a writ petition before th