Point of Law: A categorical statement is given by the petitioner that she is neither interfering in lives or movements of the persons living above the ground floor nor any of them is a tenant of the petitioner or planted by her.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

1. Present is an unfortunate litigation between the petitioner widow and her only son with her in-laws (private respondents).

2. The writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow in Case No. 75 of 2019, filed under the U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Senior Citizens Rules 2014’) whereby direction for eviction of petitioner from the House No. 3/347, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (house at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow) within 15 days of receiving of the order has been issued.

3. Facts of the case are that petitioner Smt. Khushboo Shukla and Sri. Gaurav Shukla got married on 04.02.2013. Initially, they were living with the parents of Sri. Gaurav Shukla in House No. 54/4, Veer Nagar, Udaiganj, Lucknow (house at Udaiganj, Lucknow). However, soon thereafter certain family disputes arose and, therefore, petitioner and her husband started living separately on the ground floor of the house at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. On 21.07.2015, a son Shikhar Salil Shukla was born out of the wedlock. Husband of petitioner Sri. Gaurva Shukla expired on 15.07.2019 leaving behind his minor son, wife and his parents. Petitioner alleges that after the death of her husband, private respondents started harassing her, including for dowry. In the said background, she lodged several F.I.R. She also filed a Complaint Case No. 1136 of 2019, Khushboo Shukla and Another vs. Kavita Shukla and Others on 06.11.2019 before the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (A.P.) Lucknow, under Section 12 and 13 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act, 2005). By the said complaint case, she sought maintenance for herself and her son and also prayed for restraining the private respondents from dispossessing the petitioner and her son from the house at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, wherein she was residing since before the death of her husband. Meanwhile, private respondents also filed a Case No. 75 of 2019 on 25.10.2019 under Rule 21 and 22 of the Senior Citizens Rules, 2014. By the said case, the private respondents asked for possession of house at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow by evicting the petitioner from the same. By order dated 17.02.2020, Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (A.P.) Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 1136 of 2019 filed by petitioner granted maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month to petitioner and Rs. 2000/- per month to her son and further restricted the private respondents from evicting the petitioner from the house at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The private respondents have not challenged the said order. Soon thereafter, the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow in Case No. 75 of 2019 filed by private respondents passed the impugned order dated 14.07.2021 directing eviction of the petitioner from the house at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow within 15 days of receiving the award. Thus, the present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.07.2021.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that though initially petitioner was granted an interim protection by this Court but the same could not be extended and her belongings were thrown on the road and she was forcefully evicted from the house at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow on 08.09.2021.

5. This court passed an order on 17.09.2021 and tried for an amicable solution between the parties as both counsels for the parties agreed for mediation. However, the parties could not come up with a settlement suitable for both the parties.

6. I have heard Sri. S.S. Rajawat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sunil Dixit, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite parties nos. 1 and 2.

7. Learned counsel for private respondents, raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the ord