JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule is taken up for hearing forthwith with consent of Counsel. This writ petition challenges an order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Senior Citizen Tribunal, Suburban District of Mumbai, under Section 5(1) of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“Act”).

Short facts of the case may be stated as follows :

2. The Petitioner herein is the daughter-in-law of Respondent No.1 and wife of Respondent No.2. Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 are brothers-in-law of the Petitioner. It is her case that all Respondents were residing in a building called “Joy Sapphire”, situated at Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056. The building was said to be owned by the joint family of all Respondents. The Petitioner has been living with her husband, Respondent No.2, in one flat of the suit building. It is submitted that after redevelopment of the suit building, as per a family arrangement between all members of the family, vide Articles of Agreement dated 16 August 2010, Flat No.101 on first floor came to be allotted to Respondent No.5 (brother-in-law), whilst Flat No.201 came to be allotted to Respondent No.4 (another brother-in-law) and Flat No.301 came to be allotted to the Petitioner’s husband-Respondent No.2. The Petitioner has produced a copy of the Articles of Agreement duly registered with Sub-Registrar of Assurances. Whilst the parties were, respectively, in occupation of their flats, on 28 January 2019, Respondent No.1 (mother-in-law) filed an application under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act (Application No.12 of 2019). The application inter alia prayed for appointment of a protection officer for safety of the applicant’s life and properties and direction against Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner herein and their families to hand over peaceful possession of Flat No.301, third floor of Joy Sapphire. The application was made on the basis of allegations of cheating of Respondent No.1 by the other Respondents and also the failure of Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 to take care of, and maintain, Respondent No.1. The application also made various personal allegations against the Petitioner herein. It was submitted that the Petitioner herein, with malafide intention to siphon off the property in her name, committed various acts of misdemeanor in respect of the family properties. Several allegations of inappropriate behavior on the part of the Petitioner vis-a-vis Respondent No.1 find place in the application. By his impugned order, Sub-Divisional Officer, sitting as a Senior Citizen Tribunal, directed the Petitioner as well as Respondent No.2 to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the suit flat and arrange their own housing in future. This order has been challenged in the present petition on various grounds.

3. Broadly, it is submitted by the Petitioner that Respondent No.1 and her son, Respondent No.2 (husband of the Petitioner), have conspired against the Petitioner, seeking to throw her out of the suit flat, since the relationship between the Petitioner and her husband, Respondent No.2, has been strained. It is submitted that the suit flat is in the name of Respondent No.2 under a registered agreement and the Petitioner has been residing therein with Respondent No.2 as her matrimonial home. It is submitted that though far worse allegations have been made against the other Respondents (Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5) and despite claiming in her application that Respondent No.2, the Petitioner’s husband, was properly maintaining her, the latter has, in her application, sought eviction only of the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 from the suit flat. It is submitted that the order is wholly without jurisdiction.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no authority, either under Section 4 or under Section 23 of the Act, to pass an order of eviction against the Petitioner herein. It is submitted that no case is made out under Section 4 of the Act in the present matter, namely, of want