ORDER

1. Petitioners have filed this Misc. Petition challenging order dated 6.8.2020 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Khandwa, in application filed for maintenance under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2007’). By said order, learned Tribunal has passed an order under sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Act of 2007, for eviction of respondents No.1 & 2 from the house situated in Prem Nagar, District Khandwa.

2. Petitioners had challenged the order passed by SDO, Khandwa before Collector Khandwa. Collector, Khandwa vide its order dated 16.9.2020 has dismissed the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that appeal under section 16 can only be preferred by senior citizen and parent and further party shall not be represented through legal representative. As petitioner has no other alternative remedy under Act of 2007, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing or order of Sub Divisional Officer. Order passed by Collector is not called in question in this misc. petition.

3. Petitioners have challenged the order of SDO dated 6.8.2020 on the ground that SDO has no jurisdiction to pass the order of eviction.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents had relied on a judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of S. Vanitha v. Dy. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Others, 2021(1) JLJ 376 = 2020 SCC Online 1023].

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that sections 20, 21, 22 & 23 of the Act of 2007, does not provide any power to Tribunal to pass an order of eviction. Under section 20, the State Government shall ensure medical support for senior citizens; under section 23, senior citizens who have, after commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion and shall be declared void by the Tribunal. Section 9 of the Act of 2007, provides for order of maintenance.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners who are legal representatives of deceased has a share in the property. Being the legal heir of deceased and co-owner of property with respondent no.1 Indu Bai, petitioners cannot be deprived of their right and they cannot be evicted from the house. It is further argued by him that as per the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of S. Vanitha (supra), eviction orders which was passed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the Appellate Authority and Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka were set aside by the apex Court. The issue involved in the case was that one S. Vanitha, who was daughter-in-law, filed an appeal before apex Court against the order of High Court where she has challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to pass an order of eviction under the Act of 2007. The apex Court, in para-41 of the judgment, held that appellant S. Vanitha (supra), has a right of residence in the share household under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and said right cannot be eliminated by evicting appellant S. Vanitha (supra), in exercise of summary powers entrusted by the Act of 2007, and due to said reason orders by the Tribunal, Appellate Authority and High Court were set aside. In this background it was urged by him that tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction under the Act of 2007.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has relied on the same judgment and took shelter of para-20 of said judgment. Relying on the said paragraph, it is submitted by him that Tribunal under the Act of 2007, may have authority to order eviction, if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of senior citi