JUDGMENT :

1. By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22-7-2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector, District Ratlam affirming the order dated 28-3-2022 (Annexure P/2) passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Ratlam (City), Ratlam whereby application filed by respondent No. 1 seeking re-entry to the disputed house under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2007’) had been allowed.

2. Facts in brief are that respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Tribunal constituted under section 7 of the Act, 2007. As per her, she is widow of Late Dashrath Chopda and was residing in the disputed house along with him which was their self acquired property and was in their joint possession. During life time of her husband, they had executed a joint Will on 18-1-2014 with respect to the disputed house as per which upon death of either of them, the survivor was to become the sole owner thereof. Thus, upon death of her husband, she became the sole owner of the disputed house and was in its possession but in June, 2021 the petitioners forcibly dispossessed her therefrom. Prayer was hence made by her for possession of the disputed house and return of articles kept therein forcibly taken by the petitioners.

3. Petitioners opposed the application by submitting that under the Will set up by respondent No. 1 there is no clause that they would be liable to be dispossessed from the disputed house. Respondent No. 1 has no right to evict them from the disputed house as they are also entitled for joint possession of the same. Respondent No. 1 is already having sufficient property and cash and is residing along with her elder son at Indore hence is not entitled for possession of the house.

4. Upon recording of evidence of the parties, the application preferred by respondent No. 1 was allowed by the Tribunal by holding that she was residing along with her husband in the disputed house till the time of his death. As per the Will dated 18-1-2014, upon his death she became the sole owner thereof in which petitioners do not have any title or right of possession during her life time. She is hence entitled for possession of disputed house. It was further held that respondent No. 1 has not been provided for in any manner by the petitioners hence is entitled for award of maintenance at Rs. 10,000/- per month from them. The said order has been maintained in appeal having been preferred by the petitioners by the Collector by the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the application filed by respondent No. 1 directing for their eviction from the disputed house in exercise of powers under the Act, 2007. Thereunder there is no right conferred upon the Tribunal to direct for delivery of possession of property and it can only grant reliefs as specifically provided for under the Act. By directing for recovery of possession it has acted beyond jurisdiction. It is further submitted that petitioners were not affording due opportunity of hearing by the Tribunal which aspect has also not been considered by the appellate authority. The respondent No. 1 has totally failed to prove the averments as made by her in her application whereas the petitioners have categorically proved that she is residing with her elder son at Indore and also that there is sufficient space available in the disputed house itself for residence of all the parties. Under the Will set up by respondent No. 1 no right was given to her for evicting the petitioners from the disputed house. It is hence submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1085/2022, Sunil Sharan Dixit and others vs. Smt. Urmila Dixit, decided on 31-10-2022 and of the Hon’ble Sup