The Maintenance Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to issue eviction orders, which fall under the authority of Civil Courts.

1. Heard.
A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent side that the writ petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable. The order under challenge in this petition, has been passed by the tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short "the Act, 2007") and the same is not a Civil Court. Relying on the judgment of this Court dated 01.12.2015 passed in WPC No. 2113 of 2015 between Dr. Ram Sharan Lal Tripathi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, it is submitted that this Court has held that the Board of Revenue is not a Civil Court, therefore, this petition is not maintainable.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner opposes the submissions, preliminary objection and the submissions made in that respect. It is submitted that the High Court of Calcutta has decided the similar petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India in C.O. No. 3988 of 2017, Mita Panda and others v. Minati Chakrabarty and another dated 09.01.2019, in which, it was held that the tribunal instituted under the Act, 2007 functions as a quasi judicial body and to some extent, exercises the judicial power. The power of the tribunal under S.23 of the Act, 2007 to declare the deed void, is comparable to the power of Civil Court. The similar power to grant maintenance, right to residence, can be equated with jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the different statutes namely the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Special Marriage Act, 1954, etc. Therefore, the supervisory jurisdiction under the Art.227 of the Constitution of India, can be exercised in such case. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Uttar Kumar Bhoi v. Smt. Surekha Bhoi, reported in (2019) 3 CGLJ 80 : (AIR 2019 CHHATTISGARH 101), it is submitted that the similar question raised before this Court, has been decided under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, hence, the present petition is maintainable.

3. Considered on the submissions. In Dr. Ram Sharan Lal Tripathi (Supra), the writ petition was preferred under Art.226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Revenue Board exercising the power of judicial review. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Ram Sharan Lal Tripathi (Supra), after detailed examination of the default pointed out by the Registry, that the petition should have been filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, it was held that the Board of Revenue is not a Civil Court, but an authority established under Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Therefore, the writ petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of writ of certiorari to annul the order passed by the Board of Revenue, is maintainable. The conclusion that was drawn in Dr. Ram Sharan Lal Tripathi (Supra), was with respect to the Board of Revenue, exercising the powers under the Code 1959 as an authority, cannot be said to be squarely applicable to the tribunal constituted under the Act, 2007.

4. The Tribunal has been defined under S.2 (j) of the Act, 2007, according to which, tribunal means the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under S.7 of the Act, 2007. S.7 of the Act, 2007 provides for constitution of maintenance tribunal by the State Government. S.8(2) of the Act, 2007, provides that the tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and for compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed, and the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of S.195 and Chapter XXVI of th