The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to order eviction if necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parent.

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 06.07.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.1, vide which eviction order from the residential house in question has been passed against the petitioners.

2. Sole argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the petitioners do not have any other house, thus, the impugned order dated 06.07.2023 (P-5) be set aside and the petitioners be permitted to reside in the said house in question.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners and has gone through the paper-book.

4. Respondent No.5-Darshna Devi, who is a widow of 70 years of age and is the mother of the petitioners, had filed an application under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 for directing the eviction of the petitioners from the house in question and to hand over the physical possession of the same and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month each i.e. total Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance /allowance and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses. In the application, it was averred by respondent No.5 that vide sale deed dated 16.12.1989, she was the owner of the house in question, which was built in 100 sq. yards and the present petitioners, along with the third son of respondent No.5 i.e. Sanjay, were living in the said house. It was further averred that the present petitioners did not bear any expense for her maintenance and the petitioners were drunkards and also used to steal household articles from the house for buying liquor and that the petitioners used to utter filthy language when talking to respondent No.5 and also maltreated her and whenever respondent No.5 tried to make them understand, they would pick fights and give beatings to her due to which the image of respondent No.5 had been diminished in the locality. It was further averred that the petitioners have been threatening to throw respondent No.5 out of the house and on account of the same, respondent No.5 was living in fear in the house. Further averments were made to the effect that the petitioners were earning Rs.30,000/- per month each and were not maintaining respondent No.5 and were also not discharging any social obligation towards their sisters. On the basis of the said pleas, prayer for eviction and maintenance had been made in the said application.

5. Reply to the said application was filed by the petitioners and in the said reply, pleas were taken, which clearly showed that there was a dispute between the parties and it was not possible for the petitioners and respondent No.5 to live in the same house. In paragraph 2 of the said reply, it was stated that respondent No.5 was very clever, mischievous and an adamant lady and expert in creating drama to show her illness. The fact that respondent No.5 was the registered owner of the house in question was not disputed, although, the plea sought to be raised was that the house was purchased from the funds of joint family regarding which, there is nothing on record to substantiate the same. The fact that respondent No.5 was a senior citizen and is a widow, was not disputed and has also not been disputed before this Court. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Chairman under Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Tribunal, Panipat held that respondent No.5 was a senior citizen of 70 years of age and had purchased and constructed the house in question and it was the present petitioners who were residing in the house with her and were misbehaving with her and yet did not order the eviction of the petitioners and only directed the present petitioners and the third son of respondent No.5 to pay Rs.2,000/- each to respondent No.5. The relevant portion of the said order dated 11.12.2019 is reproduced herein below: -

“On perusal of the record and after hearing both the parties, I have reached on this conclusion that the appellant is senior citizen aged 70 year