The court emphasized the overarching objective of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to ensure the well-being of senior citizens, including provision for residence, and upheld the authority of the Tribunal to pass an order of eviction in line with this objective.

ORDER :

This intra Court appeal takes exception to order dated 10.02.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2679 of 2020, whereby, petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are husband and wife respectively. The respondent No.1-Smt. Indu Bai is the mother of appellant No.1-Ganesh and respondent No.2-Smt. Padma Bai is the sister-in-law (Aunt) of the respondent No.1. Both the respondents are widows. The respondents approached the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2007’ for short), with an application stating therein that they were peacefully residing in the house owned by them and after death of the husband of respondent No.1 on 13.08.2018, the appellant No.1 has started harassing the respondents. It has also been alleged that the appellant No.1 ousted the respondents from the house and since then respondents were residing elsewhere. It was, therefore, prayed that appellants be evicted from the house while putting the respondents in possession of the said house with further prayer to direct the appellants not to interfere into the possession of respondents from the house in question.

3. The appellants filed reply to the said application and denied the allegations. On 06.08.2020, the Sub Divisional Officer (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ for short) after recording the evidence of parties, came to the conclusion that during his life time, the husband of the respondent No.1 had purchased land admeasuring 600 sq.ft over Khasra No.918, by a registered sale deed dated 22.07.2007, thereupon house was constructed. The Tribunal, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested under the Act of 2007 vide order dated 06.08.2020 directed that within a period of thirty days, the house of the respondent No.1 be vacated by the appellants, failing which the concerned Police Station was directed to ensure the compliance of the said order. Against the order passed by the Tribunal the appellants approached the appellate Authority i.e. Collector Khandwa, who vide order dated 06.09.2020 dismissed the same on the ground that Section 16 of the Act of 2007 only provides a remedy of appeal to a senior citizen or a parent aggrieved by an order of Tribunal. Since the appeal was not found to be maintainable at the instance of appellants, therefore, the same was dismissed. The appellants, therefore, filed Miscellaneous Petition before this Court, which has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appellants are in the present intra Court appeal.

4. After issuance of the notice, this Court vide order dated 09.03.2021, stayed the operation of impugned order on the following conditions :-

“(1) That the appellant No.1 Ganesh shall pay Rs.5000/-within first week of every month commencing from first week of April, 2021 in the bank account of his mother Smt. Indu Bai (respondent No.1 herein), the details whereof shall be communicated to the appellants by her within a week.

(2) That the appellants shall allow the respondent No.1 mother and respondent No.2 aunt to come back to the disputed house and shall not create any hindrance/obstruction of use of the property by them.

(3) That subject to the compliance of above two conditions, the appellant No.1 shall be allowed to continue to occupy one room of the house with his family where he is presently residing.”

5. On 01.02.2022, we found that possibly the dispute can be resolved amicably between the parties, therefore, the matter was referred to Mediation Center at Khandwa. However, vide communication dated 05.03.2022, from the Mediation Center we gathered that the mediation remained unsuccessful.

6. Learned counsel appearing for appellants submits that in absence of specific provision for eviction, the Tribunal should not have directed for eviction of the appellants when the appellant No.1 is a co-owner of