The court upheld the senior citizen's right to reside in the property, emphasizing that maintenance provisions include housing, and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to ensure such rights.

JUDGMENT:-

Heard.

2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 6 September 2019 passed by Sub-divisional Officer-cum-Presiding Officer of the Tribunal constituted under Section 7 of the Maintenance And Welfare of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act of 2007). Vide order impugned herein, the Petitioners have been directed to vacate and handover possession of room no.3/6, Gurukrupa Chawl, Seva Sangh, Shani Mandir Road, Meghwadi, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai 400 060 (disputed premises) to Respondent No.3 within a period of 15 days.

3. Facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:-

Respondent No.3 is step-mother of the Petitioners herein.

On the demise of mother of the Petitioners, their father-Vaijanath married Respondent No.3. Vaijanath was serving with Morarji Mills. He passed away in 2014. The disputed premises belonged to deceased Vaijanath. Both the Petitioners were living separately from their father and Respondent No.3. Both the Petitioners would visit the disputed premises. Both of them had occasionally stayed in the disputed premises. Petitioner No.1 is gainfully employed. Petitioner No.2 is differently abled (psychologically). Both the Petitioners would harass and ill-treat Respondent No.3 on the demise of their father. It is the case of Respondent No.3 that she was 60 plus and, thus, a senior citizen. It is her right to stay peacefully and comfortably in the disputed premises. The Petitioners, by one or the other way, harassed and ill- treated her and thereby made her living miserable. She, therefore, filed application to the tribunal and urged for eviction of the Petitioners from the disputed premises.

4. The Petitioners have their side of story to tell. According to them, their mother passed away when Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were 8 and 1½ years of age, respectively. Respondent No.3, being step- mother, ill-treated the Petitioners. The Petitioners, therefore, took shelter at the house of their maternal grand-mother. On the demise of their grand-mother, the Petitioners came back to the disputed premises and started living with their father and the step-mother/Respondent No.3. According to them, Respondent No.3 earns her living. She has been staying at her sister’s residence. The Petitioners have right, title and interest in the disputed premises, since they inherited the same as Class I heirs on the demise of their father. According to them, the tribunal has only jurisdiction to grant maintenance in terms of quantum of money. The tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass any other order, specifically one in question in this writ petition.

5. Both the learned Advocates made their submissions consistent with their respective case referred to hereinabove. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners further submitted that Respondent No.3 got her name recorded in the in the society record. She wanted to sell out the disputed premises. The Petitioners, being Class I heirs of deceased Vaijanath, have every right to stay in the disputed premises. The impugned order herein is, thus, liable to be set aside.

6. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the order impugned herein. Also gone through the authorities relied on.

7. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 2007 is – Traditional norms and values of the Indian society laid stress on providing care for the elderly. However, due to withering of the joint family system, a large number of elderly are not being looked after by their family. Consequently, many older persons, particularly widowed women are now forced to s