ORDER :

1. Heard on admission.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 16.01.2020 passed by the Court of learned Collector-cum-Appellate Tribunal, District Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Appeal Case No. 13/B-121/Year 2018-19 between Shri Rajesh Yadav & Another vs. Shri Shyamlal Yadav, whereby the order passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg in Revenue Case No. 06 A-74/2018- 19 dated 17.09.2019 has been affirmed.

3. The respondent is father of petitioner No.1 and father-in-law of petitioner No.2. They are sharing common accommodation which is situated at House No. 306, Ekta Nagar, Ward-07, Utai, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.). The respondent filed an application under Section 5 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short 'the Act') before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, District Durg (C.G.) on 21.02.2017 inter alia on the ground that wife of his elder son namely Harish died in the year 2017 and thereafter his elder son Harish started residing in the above house along with him i.e. respondent. Out of his wedlock, Harish and his wife have two issues, a daughter aged about 14 years and a son aged about 12 years. It is further stated that the second son Pradeep is unmarried, whereas younger son Rajesh and his wife are residing in the same accommodation. It is further alleged that the present petitioners used to create nuisance more often and they were residing on the first floor of the house where other family members were not permitted to enter. Rajesh Yadav and his wife have taken custody of property documents, ornaments and they refused to return it. The property has been willed out in favour of petitioner i.e. Rajesh Yadav and they are compelling the respondent to vacate the house, therefore, the respondent made a prayer for eviction of the petitioners.

4. The petitioners herein filed reply to the above stated application and denied its contents. The petitioners stated that there are three accommodations recorded in the name of respondent and he received Rs. 20 lakhs post retirement and at present he is getting pension of Rs.30,000/- per month. They further stated that the respondent was not treating well with the petitioner no. 2 and she was driven out of the house by the respondent in April, 2016 and the respondent also tried to outrage her modesty in absence of petitioner No.1, further, the electricity connection of first floor was cut by the respondent and finally they prayed for dismissal of the application moved by the respondent.

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg after appreciation of material placed before it and the evidence adduced by the parties, passed the order on 17.09.2019 therein directing the petitioners to vacate the premises within a period of 15 days.

6. The order dated 17.09.2019 was challenged before the Court of Collector cum - Appellate Tribunal, District Durg and vide order dated 16.01.2020, affirming the finding recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), District Durg, the learned Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by both the Tribunals is bad-in-law and without jurisdiction as there is no provision in the Act to pass an order of eviction and further the Maintenance Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal was not constituted according to law and notification issued by the State Government.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the right of maintenance and welfare includes right over the property of the senior citizens and claim for eviction is inbuilt in the Act itself. He also submits that various High Courts have passed orders for eviction. He would further submit that there is concurrent finding recorded by both the Tribunals, therefore, there is no scope of interference by this Court while exercising powers under