Mr. Amit Rawal, J. (Oral):- The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned order dated 15.12.2016 (Annexure P-2) of the District Magistrate, Maintenance Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby, an application moved under Sections 21 and 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “2007 Act”) seeking eviction of the respondents from House No.6124, Maloya Colony, Chandigarh has been allowed.

2. Mr. Sunil K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent no.2 is not owner of the property, therefore, the application aforementioned was not maintainable. In fact, she is not resident of the area. She is residing in adjoining house. As far as petitioner no.2 being daughter-in-law is concerned, she can be permitted to retain the house after marriage as she came in the matrimonial house in 2011 and thus, being share house hold, she is entitled to claim the protection.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, appraised the paper book and of the view that the maintainability of the application seeking eviction of daughter-in-law and son has already been debated upon by this Court in CWP No.17860 of 2016