JUDGMENT :

Suneet Kumar, J.

1. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mool Chandra Maurya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 and Shri Mukul Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondent.

2. Petitioner claims to be daughter-in-law of the fourth respondent and sister-in-law of fifth respondent. Fifth respondent is the son of fourth respondent.

3. Petitioner, by the instant writ petition, is challenging the order dated 6 April 2023, passed by the second respondent-District Magistrate, District-Etah and the fact finding communication dated 29 March 2023, issued by the third respondent-Sub-Divisional Magistrate Etah, District- Etah.

4. By the order dated 6 April 2023, based on the fact finding communication dated 29 March 2023, submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Etah, District-Etah, petitioner has been directed to be evicted from House-A Block, Lodhipuram, Peepal Adda, Etah, Thana-Kotwali Nagar, District-Etah. The order came to be passed on the directions of this Court in a Writ Petition No. 809 of 2023, dated 10 January 2023, filed by the fourth respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has raised a question of law that under the U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007[Act 2007], read with, Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2014[Rules 2014], neither, Tribunal nor the District Magistrate, has been conferred power or authority to direct eviction/ejectment from the residence/property. Accordingly, the impugned order is a nullity in the eye of law.

6. It is further submitted that petitioner, admittedly, being the daughter-in-law of the fourth respondent, cannot be evicted from the premises as she has inherited the property after the death of her husband.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Single Judge of this Court in Abhishek Tiwari and another vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ C No. 30835 of 2021, decided on 31 May, 2022, and Khushboo Shukla vs. District Magistrate, Lucknow and others, Misc. Single No. 16212 of 2021, decided on 2.11.2021, wherein, it has been categorically held that Tribunal would lack jurisdiction to direct eviction from the residence of the senior citizen. Further, reliance has been placed on S. Vanitha vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangaluru Urban District and others, [2020] 12 SCR 1057.

8. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent and the contesting respondent submits that the expression ‘maintenance’ includes, residence. In the event children/relative of the senior citizen/parent residing in the premises owned/occupied by the senior citizen/parent can seek eviction of their children/relative from the premises in the event they fail to maintain the senior citizen/parent or are subjecting them to harassment due to their old age.

9. It is further submitted that in the expression ‘maintenance’ and ‘property’ employed by the Legislature has different connotation. The expression ‘property’ would not include the expression ‘residence’ for the purposes of ‘maintenance’, though the residential accommodation is a property. The jurisdiction in respect of maintenance for residence and property has been conferred on different authorities and for different purpose.

11. Rival submissions fall for consideration.

12. It is not in dispute that several civil suits are pending inter se parties seeking injunction in respect of the premises. The question of title and possession, is also involved in the pending suits.

13. At the outset, before adverting on merits, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the Maintenance Tribunal, and/or, the District Magistrate has power and authority under the Act 2007, read with, Rules 2014, to direct/order eviction of children/relative of the senior citizen while adjudicating upon the order of maintenance of senior citizens/parents.

14. Act 2007