Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.4.2022, passed by the Chairman, Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2007), in Tribunal Case No. 55 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been directed to vacate the rest house in question within one month and hand over the keys to the private Respondent No. 8, apart from certain directions having been issued for protection of life and property of the senior citizen i.e. the private Respondent No. 8. The petitioners have further prayed to direct the Respondent authorities to provide safety to the petitioners and their daughter as also ensure that they are not ousted from the house in question.

2. The brief facts of the case according to the petitioners are that the petitioner no. 1 is the son of the private Respondent No. 8 and the petitioner no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner no. 1 and daughter-in-law of the private Respondent No. 8. It has been stated that the marriage of the petitioners no. 1 and 2 was solemnized on 14.6.2018, according to the Hindu Rites and Customs, whereafter the petitioner no. 2 has been living in matrimonial house along with her husband and out of the said wedlock, a daughter has been born. The petitioners have also stated that the private Respondent No. 8 filed a case under the provisions of the Act, 2007, before the learned Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna, which was numbered as Tribunal Case No. 55 of 2021, however, the notice issued by the Tribunal, was issued on wrong address of the petitioner no. 2 and she was pressurized to accept the notice by sending arrest warrant, after institution of false criminal cases against the petitioners by the private Respondent No. 8. The petitioners are stated to have submitted their reply before the Chairman, Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna i.e the Respondent No. 3, however, the same was not considered by him and instead he has passed the impugned order dated 16.4.2022, directing the petitioners to vacate the rest house in question.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the private Respondent No. 8 stays in a separate residential flat, whereas the petitioners along with their three years old daughter are residing at Preeti Guest House, which has been purchased out of joint Hindu undivided funds, apart from the fact that the private Respondent No. 8 has number of other properties as well and the petitioners are being harassed only because they have solemnized inter-caste marriage, resulting in the private Respondent No. 8 being deprived of dowry. It is submitted that neither the said aspect of the matter has been considered by the Respondent No. 3 nor the detailed written statement, filed by the petitioners, have been considered by him and instead, an illegal and perverse order dated 16.4.2022 has been passed by the Respondent No. 3. It is further submitted that the maintenance Tribunal is not an eviction tribunal, inasmuch as though the Punjab and Delhi Rules provide for an action plan in which there is provision for eviction, however, in the Bihar Rules, there is no provision of eviction, hence, the Respondent No. 3 could not have passed an order for eviction of the petitioners from the Preeti Guest House.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has further contented that the private Respondent No. 8 is not dependent on the income from the three rooms of the aforesaid Preeti Guest House, in which the petitioners are staying, inasmuch as he is still having substantial income from 20 other rooms, situated in the said Preeti Guest House, apart from 21 shops, situated on the ground floor of the said building. It is also contended that a domestic violence case is also pending consideration before the learned Court of ACJM-II, Patna, bearing