IMPORTANT POINT
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 allows for eviction to protect senior citizens from threats to their life and property, independent of maintenance claims.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for quashing of judgment and order dated 24.04.2019 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Dehradun under the “Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007”, whereby the appeal filed by the Respondent no.2 was allowed and the order dated 05.01.2019 passed by the Prescribed Authority/S.D.M., Dehradun under Section 22 of the Act was set aside.

2. Admit the petition.

3. Heard final arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

4. Facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner moved an application before the District Magistrate, Dehradun under Section 21 and 22 of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking protection of her life and property and eviction of trespassers i.e. respondent no.2 from the property of the petitioner bearing no. 5, East Canal Road Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 (hereinafter referred to as “the property”)stating that Late Smt. Ram Pyari Khanna was the owner of the property House No.5 E.C. Road; that, during her lifetime, Smt. Ram Pyari Khanna had registered a Will giving 25% share of the property, each, to her son Lt. Col. Shradha Nand Khanna (petitioner’s husband) and Vishwa Nand Khanna (second respondent’s father) and remaining 50% share to another son Rajendra Nand Khanna; that, after the death of Late Smt. Ram Pyari Khanna, the petitioner, her husband and their children started residing in “the property” and has been residing there since 1985; that, father of respondent no.2 was never in possession of the said property; that, after the death of the father of respondent no.2, the mother of respondent no.2 alienated her undivided 25% share of the property to one Shri Pradeep Kumar Anand and J.S. Rauthan vide sale deed dated 30.10.2001 and that now respondent no.2 has no lawful claim to the premises; that, on 17.04.2017 respondent no.2 broke the front wall of the said premises and encouraged two persons namely Kovid Ahuja and Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal to illegally trespass in “the property” and they broke open the locks of the rooms occupied by the petitioner; that, in this regard the petitioner lodged an FIR under Section 452/427 of IPC.

5. It was also alleged in the said application that the respondent no.2 is threatening the petitioner with dire consequences and has also manhandled the petitioner on several occasions; that, the petitioner is an old lady aged 73 years and is a helpless senior citizen who is unable to defend herself and is under constant physical and mental harassment at the hands of respondent no.2 and her associates; that, at the behest of respondent no.2, three persons Mrs. Jyoti Sood, Mrs. Meena Thapa and Mrs. Vibhas Thapa keep on entering “the property” of the petitioner/applicant forcibly and threaten the petitioner to withdraw the above mentioned FIR.

6. Said application was registered as “Case No. 3 of 2018 Smt. Neena Khanna vs. Smt Vanita Bali” and vide order dated 05.01.2019 (Annexure-1), the S.D.M. (Sadar) allowed the application of the petitioner and directed the Officer-in–charge of the Police Station, Dalanwala to get the property vacated and to handover the possession of the property to the petitioner with further direction to the respondent no.2 to neither enter the property of the petitioner in future nor commit any cruelties upon the petitioner.

7. Being aggrieved by Order dated 05.01.2019, respondent no.2 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Learned Appellate Tribunal, vide its Order dated 24.04.2019 (Annexure-2), allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 05.01.2019. Hence, the present petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent no.2 has no claim, right, title or interest in the property in question since mother of respondent no.2 had already sold her 25% share in the