The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Maintenance Tribunal has the power and jurisdiction to render an order of eviction in cases of parental abuse under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.

1. It is axiomatic that all legislations in a welfare State are enacted with the object of promoting the general welfare. But certain enactments are more responsive to some urgent social demands and have more immediate and visible impact on the social vices in society by operating more directly to achieve social reforms. These enactments, in our view, demand an interpretation liberal enough to achieve the legislative purpose, without doing violence to the language. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is evidently one such legislation. It was enacted with the avowed resolve to provide for more effective mechanism to ensure maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens as recognized under the Constitution of India.

2. The issue that has arisen for consideration in the present appeal is “whether the Maintenance Tribunal has the jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction?”

3. Both the Maintenance Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge of this Court have returned a finding that in cases of parental abuse, an order of eviction can be passed by the Maintenance Tribunal in terms of the provisions of the Act.

4. Needless to state that the above view is further fortified by the Rules promulgated thereunder, in the exercise of powers conferred by Section 32 of the Act, read with clause (i) of Section 2, by the Social Welfare Department, vide its Notification dated 19.12.2016.

5. Regardless of the legal position, it is sought to be urged before this Court on behalf of the appellants that a Maintenance Tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction and the same is beyond the scope of the proceedings for maintenance, instituted on behalf of a senior citizen.

6. In fact, the further submission made on behalf of the appellants borders on the absurd, inasmuch as, it is urged that the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the Act is an administrative forum and does not possess any judicial power.

7. Be that as it may, for the effective adjudication of the present appeal, it would be necessary to elucidate the following facts:

(a) Mohammud Aftab Khairi, respondent No. 3, is the 68 year old father of the appellants. It has been admitted before us that the said respondent is the owner and resident of the properties bearing No. 3616-3617, Katra Deena Beg, Lal Kuan, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as "the subject property") which is stated to be contiguous. Respondent No. 3 was blessed with three sons, namely, Shahab Khairi (who is not a party to the present proceeding), Shadab Khairi, the appellant No. 1 and Shahnawaz Khairi, the appellant No. 2 herein.

(b) Admittedly, respondent No. 3 runs the business of a printing press, in the name and style of "Khairi Printing Press" on the ground floor of the subject property and occupies the first floor thereof along with his ailing wife, namely, Shahina Khairi.

(c) The three sons of respondent No. 3, including appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 2 occupy the second and third floor of the subject property, respectively.

(d) Respondent No. 3 instituted a petition under the Act alleging that despite having spent considerable amount on renovating the subject property and providing separate residential accommodation to his sons, the latter resiled from their undertaking to pay him a monthly sum of Rs. 20,000/- collectively, towards his maintenance and for the day-to-day requirements of Shahina Khairi, who needs constant medical attention owing to her prolonged illness.

(e) To add insult to injury, the daughters-in-law of the elderly couple have instituted criminal complaints against respondent No. 3 inter-alia alleging attempts by the latter to outrage the modesty of the former.

8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perusing the pleadings, the Maintenance Tribunal by way of its order dated 10.12.2015 directed as follows:-

“1. Respondent No. 1 shall