Eviction can be an incident of the enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Patel, J. –

1. We have taken up the Writ Petition itself. All Counsel are agreeable that the matter be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. We have heard both sides.

2. The Writ Petition challenges an order dated 27th November, 2020 passed by the Welfare Tribunal and Deputy Collector (G. A.) Mumbai City on a complaint made to that Tribunal by the 2nd respondent (“Mr. M. R. Shetty” or “Mr. Shetty’). He is the father of four daughters, the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5. A copy of the complaint is annexed. In this, Mr. Shetty says that he does not want his daughter, the petitioner, Shweta to remain, occupy or reside in Flat No. 2A, Giriraj CHSL, 11 Altamont Road, Mumbai 400 026.

3. Before us, there is no controversy about two aspects of the matter. There is no doubt that Mr. Shetty is the sole and absolute owner of this flat. There is also no doubt that Shweta has no right of any kind in that flat. Mr. Thorat for Shweta fairly accepts and concedes this position. He accepts that Shweta has not canvassed any independent right to the flat at all.

4. The complaint of Mr. Shetty, who is today about 94 years old, is that although he is a widower with several age-related health ailments of varying degrees of severity, he is being continuously harassed and mistreated by Shweta. She was in Germany for some time. She came to India in 2015 and moved into the flat unannounced. Although she was to stay for a short period, she never left. Mr. Shetty was 87 years old when she came into the flat. He has been hospitalised several times. He was in no state of physical or mental health to confront Shweta and perhaps even thought that she might help in his old age. But, he says, his expectations were dashed. Shweta has contributed nothing to the house. Indeed, he goes on to say that she has been rude, aggressive and that her conduct has deteriorated and worsened over time. The specific allegation in paragraph 10 of this complaint is that she began to badger Mr. Shetty “for her share of the property” and said that she would leave the flat only after she was given “her share”. He then details from paragraph 11 onwards, her conduct, which he says poses a danger to his safety. He goes on to say that he is so intimidated that he has had to lock himself into his room. Mr. Shetty has been dependent on two domestic help for his medication and day to day needs. The two ladies have been with him for the last 26 years. Shweta has been quarrelling with both of them and has made allegations against them. She has caused physical distress to them and damaged the household as well. In paragraph 14 of the Plaint, Mr. Shetty details an incident of 19th March, 2019. There are further instances that are narrated in the following paragraphs. Finally, in paragraph 19, Mr. Shetty says that this harassment at the hands of Shweta continues, that his demands that she vacate have not been accepted, that she continues to demand “her share” in the flat and therefore he seeks a relief from the Tribunal “to evict” Shweta.

5. Shweta was given notice by the Tribunal. She entered a Reply. The roznama annexed to the Petition shows that the matter was listed on four dates. On at least one date, Shweta was present. But in the proceedings, Mr. Shetty seems to have been represented by his other daughter, Vinita. The resultant order impugned in this Petition is at Exhibit “A” from pages 38A to 47.

6. Mr. Thorat mounts his challenge to this order on distinct grounds. First, he says, that it contains no reasons. We find this to be incorrect. Paragraphs 1 to 6 at page 46 constitute reasons and in particular, paragraph 6 from the second sentence onwards is clearly reasoning by the Tribunal. In our writ jurisdiction, we cannot assess the sufficiency of these reasons once it is seen that there are indeed reasons.

7. Mr. Thorat’s next argument is that this order has resulted in what he describes as an eviction of Shweta from the premises. He says th