The Maintenance Tribunal has the jurisdiction to pass eviction orders in cases of parental abuse, and the State Government is required to provide a comprehensive action plan for protecting the life and property of senior citizens.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioners- who are the sons of respondent no.3- have filed the present petition impugning the order dated 10.12.2015 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, Central District constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereafter ‘the Act’). By the impugned order, the Tribunal has, inter alia, directed the petitioners to vacate the respective portions occupied by them on the third floor of the property bearing No.3617, Katra Deena Beg, Lal Kuan, Delhi within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the impugned order.

2. The petitioners have assailed the impugned order on the principal ground that the same is without jurisdiction; according to the petitioners, the Maintenance Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction and its jurisdiction is only limited to awarding maintenance to senior citizens.

3. Mohammud Aftab Khairi (respondent no.3) is stated to be aged about 68 years old (a senior citizen). He claims to be the owner and resident of the properties bearing Nos.3616-3617, Katra Deena Beg, Lal Kuan, Delhi-110006. The said properties are contiguous. Respondent no.3 has three sons, namely, Shahab Khairi, Shadab Khairi (petitioner no.1) and Shahnawaz Khairi (petitioner no.2). He claims that he runs the business of printing in the name of „Khairi Printing Press? on the ground floor of the properties in question and he and his family occupy the first floor of the properties. The second and third floor is occupied by his three sons.

4. Respondent no.3 filed a complaint before the Maintenance Tribunal, inter alia, alleging that he had spent a considerable amount on renovating the residential premises and had provided separate residential accommodation to his three sons on the second and the third floors. He claimed that his sons had agreed to pay a monthly sum of Rs.15,000/- for his maintenance and additional Rs.5,000/- per month to his wife (their mother) for day-to-day requirements. Respondent No.3 complained that despite a verbal agreement, his three sons (who were arrayed as respondents before the Maintenance Tribunal) had failed to live up to their commitment; they had paid the agreed amount to their mother for the month of March 2012 but had, thereafter, failed to provide any further assistance. The petitioners (respondents therein) had filed a statement contesting the complaint before the Tribunal and had, inter alia, alleged that the properties in question were ancestral properties and therefore, had the right to reside in it as co-owners.

5. The Maintenance Tribunal examined the complaint and passed the impugned order directing as under:

“1 Respondent No.1 shall continue to stay in property No. 3617 on the (second floor) and shall sincerely strive to support the complainant in his work and other responsibilities towards the family of the complainant.

2 Respondent No. l shall look after and provide all the medical care to the complainant’s wife or any other member of the family, in time of need.

3 Respondent No. l shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- per month to the complainant.

4 Respondent No.2&3 shall peacefully vacate the respective portions on third floor of the property bearing No.3617 Katra Deena Beg, Lal Kuan, Delhi, occupied by them within 3 weeks from the date of receiving of this order and make their own arrangements to shift within specified time.

5 Respondent No. 2&3 are further directed that they shall refrain from indulging in any argument, making comments, threatening or causing any harm to the complainants in particular and all the other members of the family including Respondent No. 1.

6 That SHO PS Hauz Qazi is directed to depute beat staff for regular visits to ensure that life and property of the senior citizen parent is safe and secure. The SHO is further directed to ensure implementation of the above said direction in true letter and spirit and put the complainant in pos