A Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 must follow prescribed procedure including affording opportunity to lead evidence and maintaining order sheets; failure to do so violates natural justice and renders the order unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. D. Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Shri Bhaskar Jyoti Goswami and Smt. Trisha Goswami, impugning the order dated 29.01.2026, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Kamrup (M), Guwahati (constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007), in WP Case No. 4717/2024, whereby the petitioners have been directed to vacate and handover the peaceful and vacant possession of residential premises belonging to the respondent No. 1, which is situated at Ulubari, Guwahati, to him within 30 days of date of the said order.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of this CRP (IO) in brief, are that the respondent No. 1, herein, had initially approached the Maintenance Tribunal, alleging that the present petitioners, who are his son and daughter-in-law respectively, had subjected him to continuous harassment, intimidation and hostile behaviour, as a result of which he was compelled to leave his own residence and reside in rented premises and hotels, and thereby his safety, peace, dignity and mental well-being has been adversely affected. The Maintenance Tribunal, after hearing the matter, by its order dated 20.07.2024, recorded a finding that the Respondent No. 1 had sufficient means to maintain himself and thereby rejected his claim for maintenance.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No. 1 approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered as WP (C) No. 4217/2024. The said writ petition was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by its judgment and order dated 14.07.2025, primarily on the grounds that the Maintenance Officer had acted beyond his jurisdiction as a Tribunal and granted liberty to the present respondent No. 1 to approach the Jurisdictional Maintenance Tribunal to seek redressal of his grievances under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”).

5. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1, who is a senior citizen, again approached the Maintenance Tribunal, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, by filing an application under Section 5 of the Act of 2007, inter-alia, stating that he has a residential property situated at Ulubari, however, due to the continuous hostile behaviour, harassment and intimidation by the present petitioners, he had to leave his own residence and reside in rented premises/hotel, whereby his mental well-being, safety, peace and dignity has been adversely affected. He sought the relief of eviction of the present petitioners from the aforesaid residential building.

6. The present petitioners, who are the respondents in the aforesaid WP Case No. 4717/2024 had filed their written objection in the aforesaid proceedings. However, by the order dated 29.01.2026, the Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Kamrup (M) has allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1 and directed the present petitioner to vacate and handover the possession of residential premises situated at Ulubari, Guwahati, to the present Respondent No. 1 within 30 days from the date of the said order. Additionally, the Officer-in-Charge of the jurisdictional police station was also directed by the Maintenance Tribunal to ensure compliance of the aforesaid order. The said order has been impugned in this Civil Revision Petition (I/O).

7. Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that though in the impugned order, it has been stated that the learned counsel for the present petitioners were heard by the Tribunal, however, no such hearing took place before passing of the impugned order by the Maintenanc