The Tribunal has the authority to order eviction if necessary for the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parent, even if the Act does not explicitly provide for eviction.

JUDGMENT :

Rohit B. Deo, J.

1. The petitioners are the son and daughter-in-law respectively of respondents 2 and 3, and are assailing the order dated 21.01.2020 rendered by the Tribunal constituted under section 7 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act) whereby the petitioners are directed to vacate the self-acquired residential house of the respondents 2 and 3.

2. The thrust of the submissions advanced by the petitioners is that the Act does not envisage a remedy of eviction, and the Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error in virtually treating the application under section 5 of the Act as a suit for eviction.

3. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the parents of petitioner 1, would submit that an order of eviction can be passed by the Tribunal to ensure the security and safety of the parents and senior citizens.

4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be necessary to note the contents of the application preferred under section 5 of the Act and the response thereto of the petitioners.

5. Respondent 2, who was then aged 78 years and respondent 3, who was then aged 67 years, preferred an application dated 21-8-2018 contending that respondent 2 has constructed a residential house from self-earning in Hansapuri, Balabhaupeth, Nagpur, and that the petitioner 1 has illegally and forcibly taken possession of part of the said house and is conducting himself in a manner as would pose a serious threat to the safety and security of the respondents 2 and 3. Respondent 2 submitted that he was a heart patient and is required to undergo bypass surgery, which he is not in a position to undergo for lack of funds. Respondents 2 and 3 contended that if the petitioners vacate the portion illegally occupied, the said portion can be let out and the rental income would enable the respondents 2 and 3 to better maintain themselves. Significantly, respondents 2 and 3 accused their son and daughter-in-law - petitioners herein of physical assault, and further of preventing the well wishers and the other sons of the respondents 2 and 3 from entering the residential house. Respondents 2 and 3 alleged that the petitioners herein let loose their dog on the visitors to discourage them from visiting respondents 2 and 3, and have in the past assaulted Gopal, their other son. Respondents 2 and 3 further accused the petitioners of threatening to kill them. It is further alleged that the petitioners do not contribute any amount towards maintenance nor do the petitioners contribute towards the water and electricity charges or property tax.

6. The petitioners have not placed on record their written statement filed in response to the application under section 5 of the Act. However, the stand of the petitioner as is discernible from the pleadings culled out in the order impugned is that, the respondents 2 and 3 permitted the petitioner 1 to occupy three rooms in the residential house, that the respondent 2 misused and misappropriated lacks of rupees by swindling the government, that respondent 2 is neither a heart patient nor is he required to undergo any surgery. The petitioners claimed that the aged parents have lost their mental balance and are therefore, levelling false allegations.

7. The Tribunal found from the material on record that there is a real possibility of the safety and security of the aged petitioners being jeopardized, and therefore, directed eviction by the order impugned.

8. I note that there is no dispute that the petitioners are residing in the self-acquired property of respondents 2 and 3. While there is a general denial of the averments in the application preferred under section 5 of the Act, the language used and the grave allegations levelled against the aged parents is, in my considered view, a reason to hold that the safety and security of the respondents 2 and 3 shall be in jeopardy unless the petitioners are evicted. In the conservative Indian society, a son is not expected to brand his a