The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the statutory provisions and conducting proceedings in accordance with the law, particularly in the context of eviction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated December 7, 2023 passed by the Senior Citizens Welfare & Maintenance Tribunal, Campbell Bay. The petitioners were directed to vacate the property, which was the subject matter of dispute.

2. The petitioners have challenged the said order on various grounds. First, that the petitioner No. 1 being a housewife, had no source of income. She was residing in the house of the father in law, which was a shared household and a protective order was passed in her favour by the Judicial Magistrate, Campbell Bay in Misc. Case No. 01 of 2022.

3. According to the petitioners, a direction was passed restraining dispossession of the petitioner No.1 and her family members from the shared house hold, without following the due process of law. The order impugned was passed without considering the above fact and also the contention of the petitioners that the senior citizen had already sold the property to a third party and had also accepted Rs. 10 lakhs as consideration. The sale agreement would indicate that the possession was also given in favour of the third party.

4. Under such circumstances, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter refer to as 2007 Act) would not have any application and the order of eviction of the petitioners, was liable to be set aside. In the written objection filed by the petitioners, specific averments were made with regard to the unlawful acts committed by one Smt. A. Dhanalakshmi and her companions, who tried to forcefully evict the petitioners on the basis of the alleged sale. An FIR was registered under sections 354, 427,504,506,509 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Further, on the complaint of the father-in-law /senior citizen, a proceeding was already initiated by the Tehsildar under section 161 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue & Land Reforms Regulation, 1966, with regard to the allegation of encroachment on the land in question.

6. Ms. Nag, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the senior citizen submitted that although the sale agreement was entered into, the registration could not be completed and the senior citizen had the right to proceed against the petitioners, under the 2007 Act. Moreover, the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Campbell Bay, restraining the dispossession of the petitioner No.1 and her family members, indicated that such order would not prevent dispossession by following the due process of law. Proceedings under the 2007 Act, permitted an order of eviction of the petitioners. Thus, the order impugned, was passed according to law.

7. Moreover, learned Advocate submitted that the order passed by His Lordship in WPA/779/2022, had not been challenged by the petitioners. His Lordship had directed the Assistant Commissioner, Campbell Bay to look into the complaint filed by the respondent No. 3 and take steps under Rule 20 of Chapter VI of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules).

8. Further, it was submitted by Ms. Nag, that the proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act was not maintainable as there was no allegation against the husband, but only against the father-in-law. It was also contended that the order impugned was an appealable order.

9. Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Administration submitted that the order was passed in compliance of a direction in contempt. His Lordship had directed by an order dated December 1, 2023, that a fresh order should be issued by the Commissioner.

10. On the basis of such directions, all the issues raised by the senior citizen in the letter dated June 21, 2022, was taken into consideration and the order of eviction was passed. It was also submitted that the property of any kind, whether moveable, immoveable, ancestral or self acquired, belonging to a senior