The court interpreted the Act of 2007 liberally to achieve the legislative purpose, emphasizing the need for a beneficent rule of construction in interpreting social welfare legislation.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. The challenge in this appeal by the appellant is to the order dated March 15, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 10463/2015 whereby the learned Single Judge has upheld the order dated October 01, 2015 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘Act of 2007’) whereby the appellant and his brother were directed to vacate H.No. 19A, Raj Niwas Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054. Suffice it to state that only one of the petitioners (before the learned Single Judge) namely Sunny Paul has filed the present appeal.

2. The facts as noted from the record are that the appellant and his brother Victor Dass are the two sons of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 namely Leelawati and William Dass. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had filed a petition under the Act of 2007 alleging that both of them have been physically assaulted, maltreated and harassed by their sons. It is their case that the appellant is an alcoholic, whose services have been terminated by the Delhi Police on the ground of misconduct and who had been convicted in a fraud case and against whom number of police complaints are pending in different police stations. It is further averred that they have already disowned and disinherited the appellant and his brother by way of publication in newspaper. It is noted, the Tribunal had issued the following directions: -

1. That the respondents (a) Sunny Paul (b) Victor Dass along with their respective family members shall vacate the entire rooms, store, toilets, open space of House No.19A, Raj Niwas Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi-54 to the extent that is under their unauthorised and illegal occupation within 10 days of the receipt of the order.

2. That all household goods, LCD, Almirah, Clothes etc. belonging to petitioners shall be handed over back by the respondents to the petitioners.

3. That the S.H.O., P.S. Civil Lines is directed to ensure enforcement/compliance of the directions (1) & (2) mentioned above, and also ensure that life and property of the petitioners is secured and no harassment is caused to them by the respondents and their family. Beat Staff be deputed for regular visits to the Senior Citizen petitioners, in order to safeguard the life and property of the Senior Citizen petitioners. Compliance report be sent to the tribunal within 15 days of the order.

3. It may be stated here that it is a conceded case of the appellant, as noted from the order of the learned Single Judge, that the Baptist Church Trust Association (for short ‘BCTA’) is the absolute owner of the property being H.No. 19A, Raj Niwas Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi-54. The property was allotted by BCTA to one Andrew Jacob, who was in their employment. In 1990, Suman Gaur who is the daughter of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, began residing in the property with the permission from Andrew Jacob. In 1995, Andrew Jacob died but Suman Gaur continued to reside in the property with the permission of the BCTA. In 2002, respondent No.3-William Dass father of the appellant/Victor Dass/Suman Gaur became an employee of the BCTA, and was allotted the property by BCTA. He was employed with BCTA from 2002 till 2012, during which time respondents No. 2 and 3 were permitted by BCTA to reside in the property. It is a matter of record that BCTA filed a suit for taking over possession of the property, which is still pending. It is admitted by the appellant and his brother Victor Dass in their writ petition that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the tenants in the property. It is noted by the learned Single Judge that the BCTA, which is the lessor paramount of the property, does not acknowledge any claim of the appellant and his brother to the property, and has stated that the appellant and his brother could claim only as children/legal representatives of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

4. It is the submission of Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, learned counsel for the appellant that the Act of 20