IMPORTANT POINT
The Senior Citizens Act empowers the Tribunal to issue eviction orders to protect the rights and welfare of senior citizens, emphasizing the obligation of children to maintain their parents, including providing them with residence.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Petitioners who are daughter-in-law and son of Respondent Nos.2 and 3. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dtd. 23/10/2023 passed under Sec. 5(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ( for short "the Senior Citizens Act").

FACTS

2.1. There is no dispute that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the owners of Flat No.B/703, Siddhivinayak Gardens Co-operative Housing Society, Opp to Sosa Classic Hotel, Ashokvan, Dahisar (East), Mumbai - 400 068. (for short 'the subject flat'). The Petitioners are as of now staying in the subject flat, with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are the mother and father of Petitioner No.2.

2.2. Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 got married with each other on 29/6/2020 in Mumbai. At the time of Marriage Petitioner No.1 was a widow, and she had a son aged 10 years from her previous marriage. Petitioner No.2 at the time of marriage was a divorcee. After marriage, Petitioner No. 2 and Petitioner No.1 along with her son started residing with Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 in the subject flat.

2.3. Shortly thereafter, as there were disputes and differences between Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, police complaints were filed by Petitioner No.1 against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, which were registered as N.C.'s. It is the case of Petitioners, that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 intended to lease out two bed rooms to "Paying Guest" for earning monies and hence they attempted to evict the Petitioners from the subject flat.

2.4. On 10/4/2023 Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed Application under Sec. 5 of the Senior Citizens Act before the Presiding Officer, Senior Citizens Maintenance Tribunal, Sub-Urban Mumbai seeking therein to evict Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 from the subject flat. On being served with the copy of Application Petitioners filed reply to the said Application of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2.5. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the documents on record by its order dtd. 23/10/2023 directed the Petitioners to vacate the subject flat within 30 days. The impugned order dtd. 23/10/2023 passed by the Tribunal has been challenged in the present Writ Petition by the Petitioners.

3. As Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not represented by any Advocate in the present proceedings, this Court appointed Advocate Mr. Sarthak Diwan as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in disposing of this matter.

SUBMISSIONS:

4. Mr. Sunil More appeared for the Petitioners and made his submissions on their behalf. He submitted that the impugned eviction order passed by the Presiding Officer of Senior Citizens Maintenance Tribunal, (for short 'Tribunal') is not maintainable, as the officer does not a power to pass an Eviction Order. He admitted that the subject flat is owned by Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

5. Mr. More's second line of argument was Respondent No.2 though is a Senior Citizens as of date, however, on the date of the filing of the application, she was 59 years and 8 months old. Mr. More however, admitted that Respondent No.3, who is the fatherin-law of Petitioner No.1 was 64 years of age on the date of the filing of the present application. Mr. More submitted that since Respondent No.2 was not a Senior Citizen on the date of the filing of the application; the application should not have been entertained by the SDO, Bandra, Mumbai. Mr More, submitted that if evicted, the petitioners will have no place to stay, and they will become homeless.

6. Mr. Sarthak Diwan who appeared as Amicus Curiae showed me the copy of the complainant and also the cause title of the complaint, which shows that Respondent No.3 was a Senior Citizen on the date of the filing of the complaint before the Competent Authority. He further showed me signature of Respondent No.3 on the copy of the complaint along with the signature