Eviction of petitioners from property owned by senior citizens was impermissible without sufficient justification under the Senior Citizens Act, reinforcing that such decisions must prioritize the welfare of senior citizens.

ORDER :

1. In this writ petition, petitioners are challenging the order dated 22^nd April, 2021 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1 in Case No.MSC/CR/81/2019-20, wherein the petition filed by respondents 2 and 3 against the petitioners herein under Sections 4 , 5 and 22(2) of the MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT , 2007 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Senior Citizens Act') came to be allowed.

2. The facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of this writ petition are that the respondents 2 and 3 herein are the parents of the petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.2 is the Wife of the petitioner No.1. The respondent No.2 is the absolute owner of the Site bearing No.750 situate at Gokula, 1^st Stage, 2^nd Phase, Diwanarapalya, Gokula Extension, Bengaluru. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 had filed Original Suit No.8815 of 2017 against the respondents 2 and 3 before the competent Civil Court, seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. In the meanwhile, respondents 2 and 3 have filed Case No.MSC/CR/81/2019-20 before the respondent No.1 under Sections 4 , 5 and 22(2) of the Senior Citizens Act, seeking possession of the land. The respondent No.1, after considering the material on record, by order dated 22^nd April, 2021 (Annexure-A) allowed the petition and directed the petitioners herein to handover the vacant possession of the entire petition schedule property subject to the orders passed by this Court, in Writ Petition No.15127 of 2019 dated 29^th January, 2021 and in the pending proceedings in Original Suit No.8815 of 2017. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners presented this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri. Suhas P., learned counsel appearing for petitioners; Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1; Sri. Shivani Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2; and Sri. Anandeeswar D.R., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.

4. Sri. Suhas P., learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents 2 and 3 have filed petition before the respondent No.1, seeking award of Rs.10,000/- towards their maintenance, however, the respondent No.1 passed an order to evict the petitioners from the petition schedule property, which is impermissible under law. It is also argued by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the respondents 2 and 3 are owning other immovable properties including a Petrol Bunk and at the behest of the daughter of the respondents 2 and 3, they have initiated the impugned proceedings against the petitioners. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, Sri. Shivani Shetty and Sri. Anandeeswar D.R., learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 respectively, sought for eviction of the petitioners on the ground that the respondents 2 and 3 are under mental agony and suffering from the harassment from the petitioners. Accordingly, they sought for eviction of the petitioners for the schedule property.

6. Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1.

7. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. The respondents 2 and 3 have approached the respondent No.1, seeking relief of direction to the petitioners herein to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards their maintenance as well as sought for eviction of