IMPORTANT POINT
The Maintenance Tribunal has jurisdiction to order eviction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to protect senior citizens' rights, without adjudicating ownership issues, which fall under civil court jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK KUMAR SINHA, J.

Heard learned counsels for the Parties.

2. The Present Writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“(i) For quashing of the order dated 10.06.2022 passed in Senior Citizen (Misc.) Appeal No. 01/2020-21 by the Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Patna whereby and whereunder the learned Collector set aside the order of Chairman cum Sub Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna.

(ii) For issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus upon the respondents authority to not disturb the family of the petitioners as the petitioners are living along with their family members.

(iii) For issuance of direction as your lordship may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioners.”

3. Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge (Annexure–7 to the LPA appeal), submitted that the very initiation of proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the appellants are not “children” within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act, but nephews of the complainant senior citizen. It was urged that the property in dispute constitutes a joint family property, and issues of ownership, partition, and entitlement are already subjudice before the competent Civil Court (Annexure–2). Despite this, the Maintenance Tribunal, in a summary proceeding under Section 23 , assumed to decide complex questions of title and possession, which lie outside its limited statutory domain. The appellants defence and supporting documents, including the written reply (Annexure–6 to the writ petition; Annexure–SA/1 to the supplementary affidavit), the registered family settlement deed (Annexure–8 to the writ petition), and the revenue receipts establishing possession (Annexure–9 to the writ petition), were disregarded, and the appellants were erroneously treated as mere licensees or permissive occupiers.

It was further submitted that the interlocutory applications filed during pendency (Annexure–IA/1 and Annexure–IA/2 to the LPA appeal) demonstrate the continuing prejudice suffered by the appellants due to the impugned orders. It was further contended that eviction or dispossession under Section 23 cannot be ordered mechanically, and the Tribunal is bound to act fairly and in consonance with statutory limitations. On these premises, it was urged that the orders of the Tribunal (Annexure–4 to the writ petition; Annexure–2 to the LPA appeal), affirmed by the learned Single Judge, are vitiated by jurisdictional error, disregard of material evidence, and misapplication of the Act, and therefore warrant interference in this LPA appeal.

4. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the proceedings before the Maintenance Tribunal were fully within jurisdiction and in strict consonance with the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It was argued that the appellants are in permissive occupation of the property, without any vestige of independent title, and cannot resist the lawful claim of the senior citizen. The Tribunal, by its order dated [dated 20.7.2022 from Annexure-4 WP / Annexure-2 LPA] (Annexure-4 to the writ petition; Annexure-2 to the LPA appeal), after due notice and hearing, recorded categorical findings that the senior citizen was entitled to recover possession and rent. It was further submitted that the so-called family settlement deed (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) and revenue receipts (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) carry no legal sanctity and were rightly disregarded. The subsequent affidavit and revenue entries, even if considered, do not