2026:APHC:4817 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.22953 OF 2023

ORDER:

1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Divisional Senior Citizens Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in D.Dis.No.1278/2023/C.S-2 dated 09.08.2023, whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate the house bearing H.No.23-64-7/1, Dayal Nagar, Gajuwaka and hand over vacant possession to the

4^th respondent.

2. Briefly stated, the 4^th respondent is a senior citizen residing in her self-acquired house at Dayal Nagar, Gajuwaka. Her husband is deceased and she has three married daughters. The petitioner, being the second daughter, separated from her husband and was permitted to reside in the 4^th respondent’s house. According to the 4^th respondent, the petitioner’s conduct subsequently became abusive and aggressive, including verbal abuse, throwing household articles, and creating an atmosphere of fear and insecurity. Despite being asked to vacate, the petitioner continued to occupy the premises. Apprehending danger to her life and property, the 4^th respondent approached the Divisional Senior V , 3 J 2 026:APHC:4817 Citizens Tribunal Visakhapatnam, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to vacate the premises and hand over possession, holding that the 4^th respondent is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of her self-acquired property. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Sri V.V. Satish, Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, being the daughter of the 4^th respondent, has a right to reside in the house. It is submitted that she was permitted to stay in the premises after separating from her husband and has been residing there for a long time. It is further contended that the allegations of harassment are false and that the Tribunal erred in directing eviction without properly appreciating the petitioner’s difficulty.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue filed counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.3 and would submit that the Tribunal passed the impugned order in exercise of powers under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, directing the petitioner to vacate the house, which is the self- acquired property of respondent No.4. It is further submitted that V , 3 J 2 026:APHC:4817 respondent No.4 is entitled to safeguard her property, including by seeking police protection, if necessary. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected.

5. On the other hand, Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent submits that the house is her self-acquired property and the petitioner was allowed to stay only out of compassion. It is contended that the petitioner’s conduct caused continuous harassment and mental agony to the 4^th respondent, a senior citizen. The Tribunal, after due consideration of the facts and the statutory scheme, rightly directed eviction in order to protect the life and property of the senior citizen.

6. Whether the order passed by the Divisional Senior Citizens Tribunal directing the petitioner to vacate the premises warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

7. It is not in dispute that the house in question is the self- acquired property of the 4^th respondent. The petitioner’s residence in the said house was discretionary and not as a matter of legal right. Once the discretionary possession was withdrawn, the petitioner cannot insist upon continued occupation of the premises.

V , 3 J 2 026:APHC:4817

8. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is a beneficial legislation enacted to ensure that senior citizens are able to live with dignity, peace, and security. The Tribunal is empowered to pass appropriate orders to protect the life and property of senior citizens when they are subjected to neglect o